APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted, Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Lynch
also appearing on behalf of the People.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of
the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter.
Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Kardashian, Mr. Bailey. The People are
represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Kelberg, Mr. Lynch. The jury is not
present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up as to our change in
focus here?

MR. KELBERG: I think there are a few matters I have discussed with Mr.
Shapiro.

THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. Mrs. Robertson.

(Discussion held off the record between the court and the clerk.)

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Initially, your Honor, Mr. Lynch, on my behalf, filed two
letters with the Court and copies to Defense counsel asking for clarification
with respect to the Court's order on photo 50, asking for reconsideration with
respect to crime scene photos 39 and 40, which was, I believe, still under
consideration by the Court, as I understood the Court's order, and--

THE COURT: Well, as to 39 and 40 there was no clear explanation, either
in argument or in your letter in support, indicating to me why that was
relevant.

MR. KELBERG: I think perhaps the Court may have mistaken or forgotten a
comment that we made in the original letter, which is the letter dated April
14th, and I don't know if the Court has a copy of that available, but I can
read to the Court, if the Court wishes, what we said about these photos. We
submitted at the time five crime scene photos.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. KELBERG: Let me make clear, initially we never offered 39 and 40 to
show injuries to Nicole Brown Simpson on any part of her body. On page 3 of the
letter--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: --it reads: "In addition to depicting the position of
Nicole Brown Simpson's body at the time it was discovered, these photographs
establish the degree of bleeding found on the step immediately above the body,
the pool of blood surrounding the body and the presence or absence of blood on
portions of Nicole Brown Simpson's hands." That last phrase, your Honor, is
what is the purpose behind 39 and 40. We go on to say: "These photographs are
relevant to establish the sequence of wounds and in particular that the major
incise wound to the neck was the last sharp force injury inflicted."

The Court will recall, from our oral argument, I believe the testimony will be
from Dr. Lakshmanan, that in his opinion that major incise stab wound is in
fact the last wound that was inflicted, sharp force injury, and that she was
incapacitated at the time and that her hands were in contact with the pavement
at the time the blood started to flow from that. And the basis for that is
observing an absence of blood around the knuckles on both hands which are seen
in the crime scene photos as in contact with the surface of the walkway where
her body was found. And so this is a portion of the evidence that allows one
to--

THE COURT: Explain that to me one more time.

MR. KELBERG: The basic thrust of the position from Dr. Lakshmanan with
respect to this being the last sharp force injury inflicted, that this major
stab incise wound is--no. 1, there is an absence of cuts around the margins of
the wound, which one would expect if the victim were in a condition to
struggle, as one would expect a victim would, if able, from such an injury
being inflicted. No. 2, from the angulation of the wound, going left to right
and in an upward direction--

THE COURT: I understand all that, but explain to me how that is relevant
to the hands.

MR. KELBERG: And that her body, in pulling the head back to hyperextend
the neck and create this exposure for the wound. The hands, at least as the
time the blood started to flow from that wound, those hands were in contact in
the area where they are seen in the crime scene photos at that point in time,
because the blood pools around those hands and the knuckles that appear to be
in contact with the surface show an absence of blood, so it is the absence of
blood on those knuckles that are in contact with the surface which suggest that
in fact she was down, certainly at the time the blood started to flow, and from
this wound the blood will flow very forcefully and very immediately, so that is
the purpose behind it. To set up again, that last wound was inflicted to show
premeditation and deliberation by pulling the hair, pulling the head back,
exposing the neck. She is incapacitated. She is basically on the ground and her
hands are in contact, as verified by 39 and 40, showing the absence of blood
around the knuckle areas, and as the hand is seen, or hands are seen in the
position in which the body is found as reflected in those crime scene photos we
submitted, so that was the argument. It was never an issue of these hand
photographs would demonstrate wounds of any type. It was purely on the basis of
the absence of blood around the knuckles in contact with the surface. That was
the basis to submit these photos, because they are a part of the basis for Dr.
Lakshmanan's opinion regarding the manner in which that last major stab incise
wound was inflicted.

THE COURT: All right. The other two?

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: You submitted two other photographs.

MR. KELBERG: Can I go on with a clarification on G50?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. KELBERG: In the Court's order, the Court ordered us to crop out the
neck injury.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. KELBERG: But in fact there are three neck injuries, sharp force
injuries to the neck in that photograph. This is the major stab wound, complex
stab wound that is most evident. There is a portion of one of the superficial
incise wounds to the neck.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have G50 there?

MR. KELBERG: I do.

THE COURT: I don't have that in front of me.

MR. KELBERG: We weren't sure if the Court kept its copy of G50.

THE COURT: No. I surrendered everything back to you. The Court does not
have an independent copy of these items.

MR. KELBERG: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelberg. Mr. Shapiro.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, could I just finish my remarks?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. KELBERG: It is actually the third sharp force injury which is the
reason we would like the Court to clarify its order. It is that five-eighths
inch stab wound. It is seen in another photograph, but its posterior end, which
is of significance in establishing the type of weapon which inflicted it and a
basis to measure that posterior end, is provided in this photograph and in no
other photograph.

THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Kelberg. We are speaking of the
major wound here?

MR. KELBERG: No. We are speaking of the five-eighths inch stab wound
which is, as you view the photograph, to the right of what I think the Court
concludes is the major stab wound in that photograph, to the neck. It is oval
in shape, it might appear on the first blush look. If the Court has--I don't
think the Court does have, but I can provide it--I believe it is G40 which
shows that wound as well.

THE COURT: All right. Let me see G40.

MR. KELBERG: I think it can be noted quite clearly that the picture is
not nearly as crisp of that particular sharp force injury as it is in 50. I
don't know if you can crop. That is the problem. But what I will say to the
Court is if the Court says crop that out, I expect that the Court will allow
Dr. Lakshmanan to testify that he has reviewed all of the autopsy photographs
and that he made a measurement off of one of the photographs, which is not one
of the photographs that the injury will be seeing, because it is the basis and
it is not I think excludable as a basis for an expert opinion, even though the
Court has ruled under 352 that it should be cropped out because it is not the
type of evidence, such as an unconstitutionally obtained confession, on which
experts cannot rely. They can rely on what would otherwise be inadmissible
hearsay or other inadmissible matter. This photograph, the Court has initially
concluded as to that portion, simply is redundant. We suggest it is not
redundant with respect to that one particular sharp force injury.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: On the third photograph, and I have shown it previously to
Mr. Shapiro, I think he would agree that we let him know about 33, umm, and
that is a photograph that depicts a portion of cerebral cortex tissue from the
brain of Nicole Brown Simpson. I think we have made it clear, probably in our
initial papers and the autopsy reports, that Dr. Golden, in the original
protocol and in the form that is provided to reflect brain injuries, indicated
there were no injuries to the brain observed. I believe it is June 22nd, if
memory serves me correctly, that Dr. Lakshmanan and the Defense expert, Dr.
Baden, who I believe was seated in Court and may still be--

MR. SHAPIRO: He is.

MR. KELBERG: --just to my left, reviewed independently from Dr. Golden
the tissue that had been preserved from autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan observed, and
I'm sure Dr. Baden did as well, that there appears to be a contusion or at
least a blood--evidence of blood in the tissue of the brain that was preserved
by Dr. Golden. This ultimately resulted in an addendum which included reference
to that particular material along with a supplemental microscopic report
detailing the findings of that. Clearly it is something that is a mistake by
Dr. Golden not to have addressed or diagrammed, and it is a matter which Dr.
Lakshmanan would talk about in discussing its possible relationship with the
contusion to the scalp of Nicole Brown Simpson that is in one of the
photographs we are going to show, I believe it is 40, if I'm not
mistaken--40--of Nicole Brown Simpson. I may be mistaken on the number, but we
can get it if the Court needs to see it. The issue is, was that brain contusion
directly underneath the scalp contusion, as Dr. Golden's supplemental report
suggests is his recollection, or--B20, I'm sorry--B20 is our number, or is it
from the opposite side of the brain, in which case it may reflect a type of
injury that is called a contrecoup, C-O-N-T-R-E-C-O-U-P, type injury, whereas
if the brain contusion were directly underneath the scalp contusion, it would
suggest, a coup type injury. And Dr. Lakshmanan can explain these things much
better than I as to their significance in this matter, but it is clearly
something that was not addressed and it is something that is verifiable by the
photographs. I don't think that this is a particularly prejudicial photograph
in any way. I don't think most people would have the foggiest idea what they
would be looking at. It is certainly not gruesome in any sense of the term and
its probative value I think is significantly advanced by its relationship to
the scalp contusion which relates to the nature and extent of any struggle
between Nicole Brown Simpson and the perpetrator of her murder. So those are
the three photos. The other thing I wanted to do, to make sure there is a
record in the event that there is a conviction and appeal, is to have preserved
as a Court exhibit, if we could, the full set of photographs that we submitted
with the designation that we were not going to be using these photographs,
because the Court reviewed both the photographs we submitted that we wanted to
use from the Coroner photos, as well as the other available Coroner photos
which we had no intention of using, and it seems to me that any reviewing Court
that wants to evaluate the Court's exercise of 352 discretion would be helped
by seeing all of the photographs that were available. Clearly the ones that are
being used are going to be seen as exhibits. Those which were offered and
excluded by the Court we will have available to have marked as part of the
Court exhibit.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: And then the balance as well, so we have them here and we
would like to have them marked for the purposes of that hearing in any
designation the Court wishes, either as a Court exhibit or a People's exhibit,
whatever the Court desires.

THE COURT: I think we will just call the--I have listed the--in the
Court's order by indicating the designation that the People have given to it,
crime scene, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, so we will make the package of
autopsy and crime scene photographs for this purpose Court's exhibit 13 with a
sub designation as indicated by the People.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I think that is a good suggestion.

(Court's 13 for id = pkg of autopsy photos)

MR. KELBERG: And that is what I wanted to bring to the Court's
attention with respect to the photographs, so perhaps if the Court wants to
hear from Defense counsel and then I would ask to be heard on several other
matters.

THE COURT: Several?

MR. KELBERG: Brief, and it may be a question of timing rather than
having them resolved at this point. Do you want me to indicate what they are?

THE COURT: Out of shear curiosity, sure.

MR. KELBERG: Well, one is still the unresolved issue of other alleged
incidents of mistakes by Dr. Golden. As the Court will recall from our oral
argument, there were two incidents, in addition to the two that we conceded
were mistakes by Dr. Golden, which were raised in a television program on ABC,
Primetime Live. We have advised Mr. Shapiro that our position is no mistakes
were made in those two cases, and we obviously abide by the Court's ruling as
to the admissibility of mistake evidence. We are not trying to relitigate the
two cases that the Court ruled were admissible, but because we do not believe
mistakes were made in these additional cases, that we would have to litigate
the merits of those two cases--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: --to evaluate whether a mistake has been made. And we would
raise a 352 objection to this. There was one additional case that came to my
attention through Dr. Lakshmanan, I believe on the 24th of May. Counsel has
been advised with a letter of mine dated May 25th to Dr. Lakshmanan--to Dr.
Lakshmanan, or a memo to file, I can't remember which one off the top of my
head, but basically it involves a gentleman who was autopsied by Dr. Golden and
in the course of the autopsy Dr. Golden made note that the gentleman had a
thyroid gland. It appears to be the case that the gentleman had had his thyroid
gland removed many years earlier, so this would appear to be a clear mistake by
Dr. Golden. Again, this is a case--it is not a sharp force injury, gunshot
wound case whatsoever. In fact, I believe Dr. Lakshmanan would testify that
there is no significance to what the issues were in that particular autopsy on
whether or not the man had a thyroid gland. But it is a mistake, we bring it to
the Court's attention, we have brought it to Defense counsel's attention. My
position would be on that one that it is so unrelated to what the issues are
here, and basically cumulative to what will be a plethora of evidence
concerning mistakes not only in this series of cases that are before the Court,
but also in these additional two cases that the Court has allowed to be heard
by the jury, that it would be simply cumulative, and especially on matters that
are unrelated to this type of cases. So that is one of the matters that we
wished to address. And I have been advised by Mr. Shapiro that he has
objections to some or all of our charts, I believe primarily the time of death
charts. And obviously we are willing to discuss that whenever the Court
wishes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Those were the matters that I believe I wished to bring to
the Court's attention.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, how much of the time of death chart issue--

MR. KELBERG: We are not going to get into it today, I can tell the Court
that quite clearly. As I understand we are going to noon. We will not get
remotely close to it, I don't believe.

MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor. Thank you very much. Your Honor,
I believe the Court has already made a ruling on the crime scene photographs.
You've heard our extensive arguments on all of those issues regarding crime
scene photographs and autopsy photographs. We stand by those arguments, mainly,
that the autopsy photographs are so gruesome and so horrendous that their
prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value, and hearing what was said
this morning, I think they are irrelevant also. If counsel is arguing that
injuries that are not related to the cause of death are not relevant and that
mistakes made by Dr. Golden are not relevant, then we are willing to stipulate
that the cause of death to Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were as indicated
by Dr. Lakshmanan. The People can form that stipulation and we can move on, if
that is really what their intention is, but it seems clear that that is not
their intention. Their intention is to demonstrate through these photographs
something which they have no evidence of and that is that the photographs can
show premeditation and deliberation. And of all the experts we have consulted,
there is not one in the world who can conclude from photographs of injuries the
state of mind of the real killer in this case. So we would first ask the Court
that if the People really are trying to only bring out the actual wounds that
are the cause of death, that their examination be limited to that and that
anything else be irrelevant. And regarding any photographs that are used for
the purpose of showing premeditation and deliberation, we would ask the Court
to find that any probative value is so highly speculative at best, and is
nowhere found in the literature, that they should be prohibited under 352.
Regarding the charts that have been proffered, we have several comments, if the
Court wishes us to address them now. I think it probably would be good to do
that, because in the event that some of these are not going to be allowed or
have to be changed, it would give the People time over the weekend to do that,
but I will follow the Court's guidance.

THE COURT: Well, it would be my suggestion that we come back and confer
at 1:30 this afternoon. Let's use the time for the presentation of the
fundamentals to the jury. We have the doctor here. We have the jury here. Let's
use the morning session for presentation to the jury. Mr. Kelberg, what
exhibits are you going to use this morning with the--

MR. KELBERG: As I understand it, the chart that Mr. Shapiro is concerned
about are time of death charts.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, no, actually they go to--they begin with--there are
comments on virtually every chart that has been proffered by the People,
beginning with the wound characteristics and possible sources, which is another
issue that we have to address before the jury hears any testimony. And that is,
I've been informed that there are four knives, none of which the People claim
were the knives that were used that they want to present to the doctor for
examination, and we would object to any of those knives being shown as being
irrelevant and being prejudicial as they are going to--as they are going to
attempt to try to link these in some way to Mr. Simpson, either through
ownership of a stock interest in a company that makes knives or to knives that
may have been present at the murder scene, so we would object to those. And the
first chart that comes up, "Wound characteristics and possible sources" is
purely argumentative. In fact, I think the best argument I can make on any of
these charts is to ask the Court to reread Mr. Hank Goldberg's arguments to
your Honor regarding our charts which the Court sustained.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. SHAPIRO: You are welcome.

MR. KELBERG: May I briefly respond? I must say, your Honor, in all of my
argument on the photographs, I don't believe I ever used the word or words "Not
relevant." I'm not relitigating the entire motion. Mr. Shapiro apparently
wishes to relitigate the entire motion. We have offered to the Court--

THE COURT: No, I take that as preserving his record.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Then let's go to photos don't demonstrate the state of
mind? I must say, in all the California Supreme Court decisions I have ever
reviewed where they talk about the basis of admissibility of autopsy photos,
and the most common basis is they reflect on premeditation and deliberation,
malice, intent to kill, and that is what makes them admissible. It seems to me
it is not a question of whether Dr. Baden or some other expert thinks they can
read the mind of the killer. The issue is are these photographs helpful to a
jury in assessing what was the state of mind of O.J. Simpson when he killed
these two human beings? And that is the basis on which they were offered and
that is the basis on which I think the Court allowed us to use the vast
majority of them. With respect to the knives, we--unless there is somebody--and
you know, there are so many lawyers on our O.J. Simpson team, I don't know
probably half of them, so I may not know what somebody else is doing and they
probably won't know what I'm doing--

THE COURT: That is a big problem, isn't it?

MR. KELBERG: That is a big problem, but I'm down here for a limited role
and I hope to keep the role very limited, and I will be in and out of here and
the Court maybe won't even notice me. The issue of knives is not to show that
Mr. Simpson owned any of these knives, had stock in any of the companies that
manufactured them. These knives are being used to show the jury class
characteristics of knives. There has been a big issue raised, I think by the
Defense, as to, hey, the Coroner, Dr. Golden, said at the preliminary hearing a
second knife could be involved. And in fact what he really says and what the
evidence will show is that all of the wounds are consistent with a single
single-edged knife, but certain of the wounds have patterns of characteristics
that make it impossible to distinguish whether it is due to a single-edged
knife or a double-edged knife, so you cannot exclude the possibility of a
second knife. But the evidence is also going to show that there is not one
sharp force injury that cannot be attributed to a single-edged knife. These
knives are to show the jury things like thickness of the blade, which has some
bearing on the width of the wound on the surface of the body.

These knives have different lengths which may reflect on the depth of
penetration of the wound into the body. These blades have different widths
which may reflect on the length of the wound on the surface of the body, and so
when the issue is raised of how many knives could have inflicted these sharp
force injuries, the jury has to understand class characteristics of knives, and
what doctors like Dr. Lakshmanan or Dr. Baden look for in evaluating the class
of knife which could be the source. I believe the testimony will show, your
Honor, quite clearly, that unlike what maybe some on people believe, and
perhaps based upon what people believe with respect to connecting a specific
gun to a specific bullet that is found in a body, it is a very rare situation
where forensic pathologists are able to identify a specific knife that is not
found in the body at the time that the body is found or a single knife which at
least didn't break off a part of the tip of the knife blade so that when you
get a possible suspect weapon, that just happens to be missing a tip, experts
can evaluate whether the missing tip and the knife with the missing tip seem to
correlate to one another, but it is a rare commodity to be able to show a
specific knife.

These knives are to give the jury an understanding of the differences that
appear in knives, both single-edged and double-edged, show the jury how the
wound patterns can either be different or appear similar, depending on what
kind of knife is involved, and to see how you try and evaluate things like
width of the wound, length of the wound and depth of the wound to the class
characteristics of knives involving thickness of the blade, width of the blade,
length of the blade. And that is what these four are offered for, no other
reason, and no suggestion whatsoever would be made by me, and I believe by
anybody else on our team, to the jury, that Mr. Simpson is responsible, because
the evidence may well show that not one of these knives fits all the class
characteristics that Dr. Lakshmanan may believe are necessary for a single
single-edged could have created all of these wounds. That is the rationale
behind it. One other thought came to mind that I failed to mention to the Court
with respect to some of these photos. Some of those photos have been cropped at
what I would call unusual angles. I think it would be very important that the
jury know we haven't played fast and loose with the photographs. Dr. Lakshmanan
obviously doesn't review photographs that are cropped in that fashion. I would
ask the Court to inform the jury that the photographs that may appear to be
cropped have been cropped under order of the Court and the jury is to draw no
speculation from the fact that a photograph is cropped.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I respond briefly?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I think first that we would point out that we
believe it is highly improper for any lawyer to suggest to your Honor in
argument that the motivation between--behind O.J. Simpson killing these people
is shown in these photographs. That is an opinion of counsel. That is what the
jury is here to decide. It is improper and we believe it has no place by any
professional in addressing the Court. And we would ask the Court to properly
instruct counsel to refrain from such inflammatory comments. Regarding the
knives, Dr. Lakshmanan filed a report, and I can get the report for you, which
indicates that in his evaluation of the four knives they are inconsistent with
all of the wounds on both of the people, so these knives are totally
irrelevant. All it does is again inflame the passions of the jury by bringing
out large weapons to demonstrate what is obvious. Knives come in different
shapes and forms, and if this jury doesn't understand that, then I think they
are going to have a much more difficult time understanding some of the
scientific concepts that we have had. That is just basic common knowledge that
knives are in different shapes, different strengths, different degrees of
sharpness, and picking four knives at random does nothing in this case,
especially when Dr. Lakshmanan has eliminated those knives that were presented
to see if they could be the knives that resulted in these injuries. Therefore
they are irrelevant and should not be introduced whatsoever.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, could I just briefly respond?

THE COURT: I think we have heard enough on both sides.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Shapiro made a mistake. I'm not going to respond to his
comment to me personally. I don't take them personally and I understand why he
makes the remarks that he makes. But these are not the same four knives. We in
fact withdrew the knife which is a knife of a similar nature to a knife which
at the preliminary hearing there was evidence that Mr. Simpson had purchased
from a knife store. We took this knife out because we didn't want anyone to
suggest that we were trying to use that knife in a subliminal fashion to
suggest that that knife was the murder weapon. These knives--first of all, to
clarify the record, Dr. Lakshmanan did find two of the knives to be consistent
with the kind of knife which could cause all of the wounds, because one may
take in together the elasticity of the skin, and since we had no human
volunteers for the necessary stabbing experiments, hog skin was used, and it is
on the basis of that factor, along with others--the hogs I don't believe
volunteered either, but they had limited choice apparently in the matter--that
the experiments that were done indicated that two of the knives were
consistent, but the four knives we have here are not the four knives that were
used in the experiment. These are just to show class characteristics. And I
would suggest to the Court that a juror does not have such a complete
understanding of class characteristics of knives and characteristics of sharp
force injuries to the body that these knives are irrelevant. In fact, they are
very relevant to give the jury an understanding of the connection between those
class characteristics and the shapes of wounds on the body. I'll submit the
matter, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. As to the photographs C40 and
C39, now that the explanation or the argument regarding the relevance has been
made clear to the Court, the lack of blood on certain portions of the hands of
this victim are relevant to the manner in which death--excuse me--the manner
which the body was at the time the fatal wound or large fatal wound was
inflicted. And I will overrule an objection as to that, although it is not a
pleasant photograph. As to the Court's direction, the cropping of G50, I will
direct the cropping to take place to eliminate the large neck wound, but the
others are--will remain.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, the others may remain?

THE COURT: May remain. And as to B33, the photograph of brain tissue, it
does have significant probative value. It is a photograph that does not have
any inflammatory impact and has to be explained what it is, so I will overrule
the objection, since I think the probative value, what I can see here, the
obvious--what appears to be obvious discoloration of one part of the tissue,
assuming that expert testimony will indicate that that is indicia of injury
rather than natural condition, I will allow the photograph. As to the four
knives, on the--on the representation of counsel that these are to demonstrate
class characteristics only, as to the type of knife, I will overrule the
objection at this time, but I would like to see them first before they are
presented to the jury. All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I make one additional request, in light of
the Court's ruling?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. SHAPIRO: We would, without changing our position, since certain
photographs now are going to be admitted, ask that photograph G35 be admitted,
based on the fact that it relates to types of knife wounds.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: It is a hand wound on Mr. Goldman, between the thumb and
forefinger.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: We have no objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. All right. And counsel, one other matter. The
court reporters are not available to me this afternoon at 1:30, so what we will
take, is take the time to sit and look at these informally and take the time to
put the findings on the record on Monday at 8:30.

MR. KELBERG: We would probably get into, quite early in our examination
of Dr. Lakshmanan, the sharp force injury wound charts to show these
characteristics. I don't know when the Court takes a break, but basically we
have Dr. Lakshmanan's curriculum vitae, we have some photographs that will show
how the bodies were handled in the course of their arrival at the Coroner's
office through the course of the time when they were autopsied and subsequently
released. I don't know if that is going to take much more than maybe a half an
hour or so, at which time I would anticipate getting into a discussion in
general terms of sharp force injuries.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let's see the diagram then.

MR. KELBERG: I think the Court has--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: May I approach?

THE COURT: Which item? I have length "Of blade, wound
characteristics."

MR. KELBERG: Perhaps if Mr. Shapiro and I could approach and just so I
can find out which--

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, it might be easier, it would take probably
about five minutes for me to go through our objections--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: --with the Court and counsel.

MR. KELBERG: Do you want me to pull out the charts?

THE COURT: No, I have the photocopies here in front of me.

MR. KELBERG: Okay.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding--let me just refer to them as page 1. Page 1,
there is no objection. Page--

THE COURT: That is the "Correlation between knife wound and
dimensions."

MR. SHAPIRO: Correct.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: Page 2, "Wound characteristics and possible sources," we
would suggest that this is all argumentative, especially no. 2: "Although from
a single-edged knife blade the wound appears to be from a double-edged knife
blade because of the thickness of the blade at depth of penetration is very
narrow." That clearly is an argumentative statement, as are other matters on
that. Regarding chart 3, the "Correlation between wound dimensions," we would
submit that. Regarding the "Terminology describing injuries," we have no
objection. Regarding the "Anatomical terms," we have no objection except that
they are grammatically incorrect. "Anterior" as they define "Towards the front
of the body" is really anteriorly, as are all the other words. It is a
grammatical error. If the Court wishes to have the People corrected, we would
suggest that would be proper. On "Factors commonly used to estimate the range
for time of death" under "Livor mortis" we would respectfully suggest the
definition is incorrect, that their definition f the draining of blood is
incorrect. Draining medically implies that it go from the front to the back,
and blood does not go from the front to the back. Rather, livor mortis, is the
settling of blood. And so we would object that that is blatantly an incorrect
statement. On algor mortis regarding temperature, we believe that under B2
where they say--

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry B2 or D2?

MR. SHAPIRO: B2, 3B(2), the next chart. Do you have that? That normal
temperature may vary from 93.6 degrees Fahrenheit. There is nothing in the
literature that says that normal temperature is 93.6 degrees. That is
incorrect. The next chart, the "Relationship between post mortem interval and
body cooling" would need much further foundation before that can be admitted.

THE COURT: I agree there is a foundational necessity for all of these.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, those in particular.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: The next one, "Limitations," again they point out that on
this diagram they use the temperature of 93.6 as being within the normal range
of body temperatures for human beings. We would submit that is medically
incorrect. On algor mortis on the next page, D1, when they talk about Dr.
Lakshmanan: "Temperature plateau means the actual core temperature at the time
of death may remain at that constant value for some variable length of time due
to the body's production of heat from the residual metabolic process of dying
tissue and the metabolic activity of intestinal bacteria," that is
argumentative and it is scientifically untrue and there is no scientific
evidence for that. On the next chart of algor mortis continued, on 4C sub
paragraph double I: "The loss of body temperature due to post mortem cooling
from the actual core temperature at the time of death in which case one cannot
determine with certainty how long the body temperature remained on the plateau
or how much temperature loss has occurred from the actual core temperature at
the time of death since one cannot know what that temperature was," is
argumentative. One may be able to know that, depending on how quickly the
temperature was taken. Continuing on the next page, d sub I, 1 and 2, again
those are both argumentative with the same arguments I have just given you. An
example is that normally body temperature would not increase after time of
death; however, it could increase if the body was perhaps found in the desert
where the ambient temperature exceeded 110 degrees. The next statement on algor
mortis, whether there is a plateau stage, and they list ten things, no. 1, the
majority of those that are listed are irrelevant to this case and do not relate
to any factors in this case and they are also argumentative. And then finally,
the conclusion is hearsay, is argumentative and it takes one section, one
sentence out of a lengthy, lengthy treatise that is only argumentative and
based on prior Court rulings may not even be admissible. Under "Rigor Mortis,"
the "Survey of the literature concerning the period before rigor mortis is
detectable" listing several different time periods, but without giving
references are self-serving and are not documented.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense
counsel.)

MR. SHAPIRO: We have the references at the end, but they don't
show any direction as to where those references are. It was just pointed out
that there is at the end of this, the references of texts that were used to
come to these things, but just to pull sections out of textbooks and put up the
sections that they believe advance their cause, is not proper procedure and is
argumentative and is admitting hearsay evidence that the Court on numerous
occasions has prohibited the Defense from doing when we attempted to bring out
sections of non-texts. The same thing for "Rigor mortis," paragraph 4 of the
"Times between the persistence and disappearance of rigor mortis" is all
argumentative and the conclusion again is one sentence taken out of context.
That is purely conclusionary. On "Livor mortis" again when they start out, I
don't know were they got this from, but regarding the draining of blood into
the vessels, that is not correct, it should be settling, just scientifically
wrong. We could say the same for chart 2, however, we have no objection to that
chart.

THE COURT: Chart 2?

MR. SHAPIRO: Chart 2 on livor mortis, the time of onset.

THE COURT: Okay. You have no objection to that?

MR. SHAPIRO: We have no objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SHAPIRO: The "Conclusions on livor mortis," we have no objection to,
the conclusions by Dr. Knight. We do object to the conclusions by Dr. Claus
Henssge, since this text was written after this case and could not possibly
have been relied upon at the time of the autopsy. The "Vitreous humor potassium
level," that refers to simply the eye fluids, we have no objection to. And in
the conclusions of "Gastric stomach contents," we would have no objection to
that.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: I almost don't know where to begin, but I have a few ideas.
Perhaps if I could start with the "Time of death" and work backwards initially.
I seem to recall, and I confess I have not been following this case with the
earnest of the American populous and perhaps people all over the world, but I
have heard cross-examination by Mr. Cochran of I think it was Detective Lange
asking if he read certain things, did he agree with certain things. And of
course the Court is well aware under 801.b, experts are allowed to rely on what
is otherwise inadmissible hearsay. None of this is going to be offered for the
truth of the matter asserted, but I can indicate to the Court quite clearly
that Dr. Lakshmanan has read this material, has relied upon this material, and
has formed opinions based upon this material, because what the evidence will
show is if Dr. Lakshmanan had been at the body at 12:13 when Officer Riske
found the body and applied all of the knowledge that forensic pathologists have
to assess an estimated range for time of death, he would not be able to
differentiate between 10:15 and eleven o'clock, which is the window frame that
everybody seems to be talking about in this case, because it is not a precise
science. Now, Mr. Shapiro said there is no literature on these things. Well,
there is a book that has come out by some of the most preeminent researches on
time of death--I'm sure Dr. Baden has a copy of it, I'm sure he has read it,
and if he hasn't I will bet he will read it before he comes in to testify--"The
estimation of the time since death in the early postmortem period." People like
Henssge with his nomogram and Knight, one of the preeminent forensic
pathologists from England who has a textbook, "Knight on forensic pathology"
and is also the editor of "Simpson's forensic medicine," another English
forensic pathology text. These are big names in the field, your Honor. These
are not lightweights. So, for example, when Mr. Shapiro says there is nothing
in the literature regarding the range for core body temperature of normal
people, healthy people, page 10 of this book under Mr. Nokes' chapter on "Body
temperature at the time of death," very beginning: "It is very difficult to
specify a, quote, `normal,' unquote, body temperature as its value can vary
considerably between individuals. Rectal temperatures in a group of healthy
subjects can vary between 34.2 and 37.6 degrees Celsius with a mean of 36.9
degrees Celsius." We have computed both the Fahrenheit and the Celsius measures
on the chart. That is exactly where this is from. The that is the basis on
which Dr. Lakshmanan relies. And if Mr. Shapiro says there is nothing in the
literature, then all I can assume is Mr. Shapiro hasn't read this book. I have
read it. It is not light reading, and there is a lot of it I don't understand,
but it is not tough to understand that paragraph.

And much of the information in here, and in fact Dr. Knight in the introduction
makes it clear that some of the sections are intended for people who are not
going to be mathematically oriented and have to delve through the double
expediential formulas and various higher levels of mathematical computation
involved, but the other parts of the book are for forensic pathologists who
practice, lawyers, police officers, in helping them to understand how one goes
about estimating range for time of death. Now, Mr. Shapiro also said there is
nothing regarding how the body can maintain its core temperature at time of
death based upon what our chart says. I refer the Court to a book I referenced
once earlier when I appeared on this case, "Spitz and Fisher's medicolegal
investigation of death," third edition, edited by Werner U. Spitz who is a
preeminent forensic pathologist in the United States, I believe retired from
Detroit. On page 22 of the chapter dealing with time of death and changes after
death, second paragraph right-hand column: "The initial plateau which rarely
lasts more than three to four hours is generally explained on the basis of heat
generated by the residual metabolic process of dying tissues and by the
metabolic activity of intestinal bacteria." I think it is pretty obvious, your
Honor, I couldn't have made this up, we had to have something in the literature
to support this, and this is one of the well-recognized forensic texts. Now, I
will also indicate to the Court there is no "Dr. Baden on forensic pathology."
Dr. Baden may be well-known, but Dr. Baden is not the editor or the contributor
in recent years to any recognized preeminent forensic pathology text, and I am
assuming he has reviewed this material and he may want to come in and say they
don't know what they are talking about and then we can cross-examine Dr. Baden
to see if he knows what he is talking about, see what experiment he has done,
what research he has done, what views he has that are supported by the
literature. But all of these charts are based upon findings from the
literature, read by, relied upon, considered by Dr. Lakshmanan in forming his
opinions. There is nothing argumentative at all about what these charts lay
out, and I must say, I was somewhat dumb struck by Mr. Shapiro's indication
that you can't use Henssge's book because it came out after June 12, 1994. That
one can't use that book to tell this jury that all the hoopla about lost
stomach contents, which isn't even mentioned in Henssge's book as a factor to
be used for evaluating time of death, that in fact tells this jury that you
cannot be precise and that you talk in terms of ranges which based upon the
forensic pathology information makes it a range of perhaps 9:00 P.M. to 12:00
midnight to cover the range for time of death of these two human beings. And
that is what this chart is intended to show. It is a complex process that is
not precise and we are trying to give the jury a true understanding of the
limitations and the probative purposes of the process. Now, again Mr. Shapiro
talked about lividity. He doesn't like the word "Draining," he likes the word
"Settling." He didn't mention that the chart says draining into the dependent
parts of the body. We never said it drains from the top to the bottom. It
depends on the position of the body at time of death and if it is rotated over,
as the evidence will show. So all of this is factual, all of this is based on
the literature, all of this has been relied upon by Dr. Lakshmanan and he will
so indicate. And given, as I understand the Court's understanding of 801.B,
721, that that is a basis on which he may testify to the materials he has
relied upon in forming his opinion and that is what these charts represent.
Now, with respect to the--Mr. Lynch points out that it is interesting of course
that Mr. Shapiro objects to some but not all of the comments. I guess he likes
some of the comments and doesn't like others, but the jury should take all of
the comments together, because it is a gestalt process of looking through a lot
of different factors, starting with temperature and getting to rigor and livor
and the vitreous humor potassium level and so forth. And I don't know if the
jury is going to be bored or they are going to be excited by this information,
but one way or the other I believe they have to have an understanding of this
information to evaluate what is a contention by the Defense that there were
just horrendous mistakes made by the police in not calling the Coroner out
earlier. I mean that has been, as I understand the limited portions of this
trial I have heard or reviewed, a major contention. Oh, lord, they didn't call
them out until six o'clock and then they didn't get out there until eight 8:00
and they didn't put the probes in until 10:40 and 10:50. Well if the evidence
is going to show if the probe had been stuck in the liver of Nicole Brown
Simpson and the probe had been stuck in the liver of Ron Goldman at 12:13 A.M.
on June 13th, you wouldn't be any better able to differentiate 10:15 from
eleven o'clock than you would be when ms. Ratcliffe did the performance of the
livor temperature reading at 10:40 and 10:50 in the morning.

THE COURT: Liver.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, you're right, your Honor. I'm flipping through
the--that's why the anterior and anteriorly is my mistake. I was never good on
adverbs and adjectives. I'm trying to think of some of the other objections. I
think I have basically given the Court the flavor of what this is all about,
and if the Court has any question about any entry in here, as to where it comes
from and so forth, I will be more than happy to get the literature out to show
the Court. But I can clearly indicate to the Court that what this is intended
to do, for example, the sharp force injury charts, is to show the jury how
different weapons can create single-edged double-edged, can create similar
appearing wounds, and that is why when we hear from the actual wounds that were
found on the body of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, that some of the
wounds are consistent with either a single-edge or a double-edge, this jury
will be able to see what it is from the knife that leaves the characteristics
that are looked at from the wound that Dr. Lakshmanan or other forensic
pathologists would use to form an opinion as to the class of weapon that may
have inflicted the wound. I do not believe they are argumentative at all. They
are factual. And that is what we have intended to do. I wasn't here for Mr.
Goldberg's argument. I'm in the dark on Mr. Goldberg's argument. I like Mr.
Goldberg. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Goldberg, but not even knowing his
argument, I don't feel I should be saddled with his argument. I am here to make
the argument as I understand the law to be and ask the Court to rule on its
understanding of the law, irrespective of what Mr. Goldberg may or may not have
said. On that basis, your Honor, I will submit the matter.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I make a very brief response, please?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Your Honor, regarding the issue as to when the
Coroner should come out and begin their process and their examination, it is
not something that we have dreamt up. State law requires that the Coroner
immediately come to the crime scene and those are things that we are going to
bring out before the jury if the Court allows us to bring out the legal
sections involved. Regarding the position of the people in this case, it seems
clear from the statements of counsel that these charts indeed are all argument,
they are all positions that he would like to advance to the jury, and because
they are argumentative, they are not properly used as visual aids to help an
expert witness in communicating to the jury. Rather, it is an outline of their
closing argument and may be proper at that time, but certainly based on all the
prior Court rulings are improper at this time. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. As to the "Wound characteristics and possible
source" chart, which is page 2, the objection will be overruled. It is
something that can be used by an expert witness to explain his or her
testimony. I do not find it to be argumentative or improper. As to the "Factors
commonly used to estimate range of time for death," the objection being the
terminology "Draining of blood," however, the explanation given as by the
action of gravity, I don't think that there is any misunderstanding that will
be conveyed to the jury since the common sense notion of draining is that
something by operation of gravity goes from a higher level to a lower level. So
I don't see a danger here of misleading the jury. I don't find this to be
argumentative or misleading. As to the "Algor mortis" chart, based upon the
offer by Mr. Kelberg that there is substantiation in the literature regarding
the range of core body temperature, the objection is overruled pending a
foundation that that in fact exists. Also, "Algor mortis" subsection (C),
subsection (2), I don't find that to be an inaccurate statement. The objection
will be overruled. The objection as to "Algor mortis" no. 4, "Conclusion," I'm
going to ask you to strike the "4" and "Conclusion," since that is argument.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Are we to strike the content?

THE COURT: Strike the "4" and the word "Conclusion."

MR. KELBERG: But leave the box?

THE COURT: But leave the box. That is a statement from the text.

MR. KELBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: On no. 5, "Rigor mortis," strike the "Conclusion." The box
may remain, since that is a direct quote. All right. All right. We will take
ten minutes to get the jury down from the lounge and then we will start with
the jury. All right. We will take ten.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of
the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. All right. Back on the
record. All parties are again present. Let's have the jurors, please.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may Johnnie and I approach the sidebar, please?

THE COURT: I'm sorry? We're ready to proceed.

MR. SHAPIRO: I just need a few more moments with the boards.

THE COURT: Let's get started. Have a seat.

MS. CLARK: This is regarding timing, your Honor. We don't need the
reporter.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the
jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All
right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our
jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the late start this morning. There
were a number of matters that I needed to take up regarding the evidence that
is going to be presented to you starting this morning, and that discussion took
longer than I thought it was going to take. Also, as I indicated to you, we are
now going to shift into a new phase of the presentation of the evidence. And if
you recollect, at the time that we were talking to you individually about
serving as a trial juror in this case, we indicated to you that there would
come a time when we may have to show you some photographs and some diagrams
about matters that are not pleasant to look at. And we apologize to you for
that, but you all indicated that you were willing to carefully consider all the
evidence that is presented in this case. If at any time during the presentation
of this evidence, you feel unusually uncomfortable or if you need to take a
break, feel free to let me know. All right? All right. Mr. Kelberg, do you want
to introduce yourself?

MR. KELBERG: I would be delighted, your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen, my
name is Brian Kelberg. I'm a member of the District Attorney's office, and I
will be calling several witnesses starting this morning. I'm assisted by my
colleague, Mr. Kenneth lynch.

MR. LYNCH: Good morning.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Fairtlough I believe is known to all of you
already. He will also be assisting me. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. People may call their next witness.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you. The People call Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran to
the stand.

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, called as a witness by the People, was sworn
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Doctor, will you please raise your right hand. You do
solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before
this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat in the witness stand and state and spell
your first and last names for the record.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: My name is Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran. The first
name goes as follows, L-A-K-S-H-M-A-N-A-N, and the last name is S-A-T as in
Thomas, H-Y-A-V-A-G-I-S-W-A-R-A-N.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you kind enough to allow those of us
from both Prosecution and Defense and the Court and even private lawyers to
refer to you by your first name in your professional dealings with us?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And so if we call you Dr. Lakshmanan, you will not be
offended, will you?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, I will not.

MR. KELBERG: And a lot of us will be a lot happier for allowing us to do
that. Dr. Lakshmanan, are you a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in
the State of California?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.

MR. KELBERG: How long have you been so licensed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've been licensed in the State of California since
1976.

MR. KELBERG: Do you specialize in any particular area of medicine?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I am board certified in six specialties in the
field of medicine, all American board certifications.

MR. KELBERG: By whom if anyone are you presently employed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm employed by the County of Los Angeles.

MR. KELBERG: In what position?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner for the County of
Los Angeles.

MR. KELBERG: What does that position mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, I'm the head doctor in the Coroner's office
and also carry out the Coroner functions for the County of Los Angeles.

MR. KELBERG: Before we get into a discussion of your specialties and so
forth, your Honor, I have what appears to be a 9-page curriculum vitae of Dr.
Lakshmanan. May this be marked--I'm afraid I am not aware of our latest
markings.

THE COURT: 275.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. People's exhibit 295.

(Peo's 295 for id = CV)

MR. KELBERG: And I'm writing 295 on page 1. May I approach the
witness, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may. And, Mr. Shapiro, you have a copy of that?

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, I do. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELBERG: Dr. Lakshmanan, showing you exhibit 295, are you familiar
with that document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is that document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is a curriculum vitae of my qualifications and
experience.

MR. KELBERG: Is that up-to-date as to your education, experience,
training that allows you to practice in the field of medicine?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, beginning with medical school, would you take us
through your education, your experience and your training to today's time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I graduated from Madras University, India, from
Stanley Medical College in 1971. I did a year of internship in Madras Stanley
Medical College, and I came to the United States in 1972. I did a year of
straight medical internship at Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, which I completed in
1973, and then proceeded to do a full year training in anatomic and clinical
pathology at St. Luke's Hospital of Columbia University, the last six months
being as Chief Resident. During this time between 1973 and 1977, I also did
some part-time work at the office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York
City for about two years.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me interrupt you if I might for some
clarification. First of all, that period you were saying spending some time at
the medical examiner's office in New York, did you become acquainted with a Dr.
Michael Badin at that time?

MR. KELBERG: And what position did Dr. Badin hold at the time you spent
some time at the medical examiner's office in New York?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He was a Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of New York
City.

MR. KELBERG: Who was the Chief Medical Examiner at the time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: At that time, it was Dr. Vincent d'Mayo.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And followed by Dr. Gross after that.

MR. KELBERG: Dr. Gross?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, and Dr. Michael Badin.

MR. KELBERG: Did you, as a result of having gone to medical school
outside of the United States, have to take some type of examination in order to
pursue an internship in the United States?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The first step towards that is to pass an
examination conducted by the educational council for foreign medical graduates,
which I did in 1971, February. Having passed that examination, it makes one
eligible to take a graduate study in the United States, and that is how I
joined as an intern at Brooklyn Jewish Hospital in 1972. But that does not give
you a license to practice. To practice, you need to take the federation
licensing examination, which is a three-day examination, which has the same
standards as the national board of medical examiners, and I took that exam in
1974. And for that, you need to have completed an internship. That was the New
York state law at that time. And I took the FLEX examination in December 1974
and I became licensed in the State of New York as a physician in 1975, March,
during my residency training in pathology at St. Luke's Hospital.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, what is an internship?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: An internship is the first year of graduate training in
any particular field. And I did a straight medical internship, which indicates
that I did a full 12 months of internal medicine training at Brooklyn Jewish
Hospital. This is in contrast to a rotating internship where you take several
fields in medicine and specialize as your first year of training, which I did
in India. I did a rotating internship in India, but I did a straight medical
internship in the United States.

MR. KELBERG: What is the residency that you were talking about,
residency program?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Residency program is more at one's state of training,
and you pick a particular field. After medical school, everybody has to do an
internship to get a license. And as I mentioned earlier, that's how I was
eligible to take the licensing examination. Later, you decide whether you want
to be a surgeon, an internist or obstetrician and then you pick a particular
field, and I picked the field of pathology at that time. And as you will see
later, that I did complete my internal medicine training too. And the pathology
training was at St. Luke's Hospital.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what is pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Pathology is the study of laboratory science to diagnose
disease. And to put it in simpler terms, there are several fields in pathology.
The field of pathology which most people know about is surgical pathology. He's
the physician, when a surgeon removes a tumor, he reads the biopsy and tells
you whether it's cancer or not cancer. So that is surgical pathology. I did
training both in surgical pathology and clinical pathology. And clinical
pathology is the field in pathology which deals with different laboratories,
your medical microbiology laboratory, your hematology laboratory--"Hematology"
means blood counts, doing the blood typing, et cetera--and there are several
areas in clinical pathology, and that is a clinical pathologist.

MR. KELBERG: Is the term "Anatomical pathology" a synonym for what you
describe as surgical pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in that residency that you did, are you doing
exclusively a rotation in pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In these two specialties in pathology.

MR. KELBERG: And this was a four-year residency?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Take us through what responsibilities you gain from when
you first start the residency through the fourth year of the residency.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically you learn how to do autopsies on people who
die from natural diseases. You learn how to process surgical specimens. That
is, a surgeon sometimes removes a breast or a colon, and you learn how to
process those specimens, and microscopic studies are done on those specimens to
render a diagnosis. There is also a phase in that training wherein you go to
the operating room wherein they give you a piece of tissue and you do a frozen
section, which is, basically using certain chemicals, you do a temporally
freezing of the tissue and study it microscopically. And this is commonly done
as part of your training so that the surgeon can decide whether to remove a
whole organ or, for example, in a breast biopsy, you may have a lump, you go to
the O.R., they call the pathologist, they take a biopsy piece, and if it is
cancer, then they take out the whole breast. Otherwise, they may decide to
postpone the surgery depending on what they find. I just give an example. So
that is one part of the training.

I told you about autopsies. I told you about surgical specimens. And surgical
specimens doesn't necessarily mean entire organ removal. It could mean just
biopsies. You know, they do biopsies of the stomach or colon depending on what
type of biopsy is done. Another aspect of surgical pathology is also called
cytology wherein they don't take any piece of tissue. They remove some fluid,
study the cells and then decide whether it's cancer or not cancer. Then coming
to the clinical pathology, you learn how to run a blood bank. You learn all the
procedures in a bacteriology laboratory. You learn all the procedures about how
the counts, different blood counts are done, et cetera.

MR. KELBERG: With respect to autopsies, are you permitted as you begin
the residency to independently conduct autopsies on persons who have died from
suspected natural causes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. Initially--no. During the residency, you're always
supervised. You have an attending pathologist who's on staff in the hospital
who will train you in doing autopsies and what organs to dissect and how to
study them.

MR. KELBERG: Does this residency or did this residency offer any
specific training in an area I would call "Forensic pathology"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Differentiate if you could for us what is forensic
pathology from anatomical or clinical pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Forensic pathology is another subspecialty in
pathology. And to do forensic pathology, you must already have done basic
pathology. As I told you, pathology is the study of laboratory science to
diagnose disease. So you basically deal with natural disease processes. But in
forensic pathology, you gain the expertise to study unnatural disease
processes; that is deaths from firearms, sharp force injuries, drugs, poisons,
et cetera.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you use the term sharp force injuries as one of the
types of deaths that you investigate as a forensic pathologist. What is or are
sharp force injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Sharp force injuries are injuries caused by any sharp
instrument. One weapon which I can bring about is a knife, but it could also be
a sharp instrument like a broken glass piece, depending on what is used.

MR. KELBERG: Going back to the anatomical and clinical residency, I
believe you mentioned something about in the last six months, you were a Chief
resident; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is a Chief resident?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In Chief residency, you learn some administrative skills
of making schedules and also conducting the affairs of the residency program,
reporting to the attending pathologist in charge of the residency program. You
take residence concerns to the attending pathologist and similar other
responsibilities.

MR. KELBERG: Do the responsibilities of the Chief resident include
making decisions on cases being evaluated by lower-level residents when the
attending physician or attending pathologist is not available?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The Chief resident also gives advise to the
entry-level residents, but the final decision, the final diagnosis doesn't
leave the department till the attending pathologist has seen the material and
cosigns with the resident, with the Chief resident.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is every resident that attends a program such as
the one you attended automatically given responsibility as a Chief resident?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. Some residents are picked because the attending
pathologist, that is the Chief pathologist in that hospital, thinks you have
the skills to become a Chief resident. Normally in a pathology residency
program, it's--you have four to five residents in every year, and they pick
one, depending whom they feel the--has the skills to do the job.

MR. KELBERG: During the course of the residency, are there any types of
national examinations that are given to residents at various levels, first
year, second year, third year and so forth?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not at the time I did the residency. But right now, they
do have in-service examinations in other specialties. When I did my residency,
all I took was the board examinations at the conclusion of the residency. I
took my board examinations in--by the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic
and Clinical Pathology in November of 1977.

MR. KELBERG: Is there any other aspect of your residency training that
you believe would be of value to those of us hearing this case regarding its
reference to forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. As I told you, I used to work on weekends at the
office of the Chief Medical Examiner wherein I had exposure to deaths which are
not from natural causes. I saw injuries from firearms, overdoses, though we
were not allowed to do homicide cases. We did autopsies on all the non-homicide
cases, but as you know, the Chief--the New York Chief Medical Examiner's Office
is as busy as Los Angeles and you see a variety of cases going through that
office, and I had the privilege of working with different senior pathologists
who were on staff at that time.

MR. KELBERG: And one of those would be Dr. Badin?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: One of them was Dr. Badin. The others were Dr. Roe, I
worked with Dr. Devlin, I worked with Dr. Gross, I worked with Dr. D'Mayo and
different--basically when you work on the weekend, you moonlight and you do two
cases when you work on the weekend and you work under the supervision of the
Deputy Chief Medical Examiner who takes responsibility for your actions.

MR. KELBERG: What length of time did you do this additional--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I used to work on weekends beginning 1975, somewhere mid
1975 to mid 1977.

MR. KELBERG: During that period of time, were you exposed to criminal
homicides from sharp force injuries such as you've identified?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've seen cases, but I did not do them personally. As I
told you, we were not allowed to do homicide cases when we did autopsies under
the supervision.

MR. KELBERG: In seeing such cases, were you given training as to what it
is you as a pathologist would be looking for in such cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I wouldn't say full-fledged training because more
education on a one-to-one basis because you will be doing your autopsy, and
when you conclude it, you go to the next table and talk to the pathologist who
is doing the homicide and you learn from him or her.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, anything further on your residency training?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Up to this point, that is it. And then I took my boards
in--anatomical and clinical in November of `77.

MR. KELBERG: You've mentioned several times something called "Boards".
what are boards?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the United States, every specialty has a board which
conducts an examination and allows people who have gone to accepted residency
training to take an examination to see their competence in the field and award
a certificate, which is called board certification in that particular
specialty. And for the pathology field, that is the American Board of
Pathology.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is the examination one that consists of both oral
and written portions?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. In the American Board of Pathology, it's mainly
written, slide review, it's multiple choice questions, it's a three-day
examination, pretty intense. You go to written part and since anatomic includes
evaluation of slides and--which is microscopic slides or microscopic slide
session, then you have a gross photographic session where you're given 40
seconds to make a diagnosis and then the clinical pathology section has several
areas to it where you deal with problems as presented, giving your best
diagnosis.

MR. KELBERG: Did you successfully complete that examination the first
time you took it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And as a result, you became board certified in the area of
anatomical pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: And clinical pathology.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what did you do following completion of your
residency and if it's separate from your studying and passing of the board
examinations?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. Actually after I finished my residency in St.
Luke's Hospital, I moved to Los Angeles in 1977, July. And as I mentioned
earlier, I had been licensed in New York in 1975. In 1976, I took the oral
examination in California conducted by the Medical Board of California and I
took my license in the State of California also. California Board requires an
oral examination and--which I did and I became licensed in California because I
wanted to move to Los Angeles for my further training in forensic pathology,
and I joined the office of the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner under Tom Noguchi
in 1977, July.

MR. KELBERG: What did you do once you joined that office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. At that time, you were taken as a staff physician,
but you also did training in forensic pathology; and that's what I did between
1977, July, and 1978, June. And I completed my training in forensics, but
because of my experience in New York, the board of pathology allowed me to take
the forensic boards in May of `78, and I got my board certification in forensic
pathology in `78.

MR. KELBERG: What kind of training did you receive at the Los Angeles
medical examiner's office during this period once you began working there?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I did numerous varieties of homicide cases, unnatural
death cases, deaths from drugs, poisons, traffic accident victims. I think I
did about 500 plus cases in the first year I was in Los Angeles County and did
a variety of homicides.

MR. KELBERG: Were those cases done with supervision, without
supervision, a mix? What was it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It was done with supervision. At that time, my mentor
was Dr. Dean wisely. He was the Chief of forensic medicine. He always was
personally responsible for our work. Even though we worked as staff physicians
and were Deputy Medical Examiners, we were directly supervised by Dr. Dean
wisely, who unfortunately is no more.

MR. KELBERG: Did you have hands-on responsibility however in conducting
autopsies in these cases you've described?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Hands-on individually done and also had to testify in
all cases.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said something about board certification
in forensic pathology. What is that all about?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is basically the same board, the American Board of
Pathology, recognizes training in an accepted institution, Los Angeles is one
of them, and they allow you to take the examination and they give you a
certificate of proficiency that you have passed the examination and meet their
standards in the field of forensic pathology.

MR. KELBERG: Did you pass that examination the first time you took it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Approximately how many board certified forensic
pathologists are there in the United States if you know?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think about 500 to 700. I'm not sure of the exact
number. But actively practicing, about 200 to 300.

MR. KELBERG: And over what period of time has there been a board
specialty in forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think the board certificate start sometime in the
early 70's. I forget the exact date, and that's when the certification
started.

MR. KELBERG: What did you do after you obtained your board certification
in forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I was retained by the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr.
Noguchi, as a staff pathologist, which I stayed on to--in Los Angeles as a
staff pathologist and Deputy Medical Examiner. And during my stay in 1979, I
also took the Canadian boards in pathology, which made me eligible for the
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and I became certified in
pathology by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in
pathology in `79.

MR. KELBERG: By passing an examination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That was an examination which included an oral
examination also, and you go in two phases. You take a written examination
first. They're a more intense process. You had to qualify in the written
examination, and then you're invited for the oral examination, which includes a
practical portion, and that you go to a different center. I did my written
examination in Vancouver in middle part of `79, and then I went for the oral
and practical examination in the end of `79.

MR. KELBERG: And what else were you doing at the time that you were
working at the medical examiner's office in New York City?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Conducting autopsies, testifying in Court. I also at
this time got my first faculty appointment at USC. I was appointed as a
clinical assistant professor. And--

MR. KELBERG: What did that entail?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Clinical assistant--basically you teach medical students
who rotate.

MR. KELBERG: What does the teaching actually involve? What do you do?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You do lab instructions. You conduct labs for the
medical students. You go to the USC and do it.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, approximately how many autopsies have you conducted
since the time that you have worked at the medical examiner's office in Los
Angeles?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've done over 3,000, but I supervise thousands of
others.

MR. KELBERG: How do you account for that "You supervise" thousands of
others?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've been in a supervisory capacity since 1986 when I
became a senior physician. But even before that, the Los Angeles County medical
examiner's office had a title called "The operations officer." So you
immediately become a supervisory physician when you get to be an operations
officer wherein you are the triage physicians for the office. See, we handle
19,000 cases a year. Inquiries, we roughly accept as Coroner's cases about
12,000 plus in which 9,000 are brought to the central facility. You can not
autopsy every case. So you are a senior physician as far as the extent of
examination, and that is what an operation officer also does. So actually I've
been supervisory capacity since `81, `82 and--not `81. 1979, `80. But in `86, I
got the official title of senior medical examiner.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in the course of the 3,000 or so autopsies you have
actually conducted, have they included criminal homicide cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: First of all, I think we've heard "Murder" used and I'm not
sure we've heard what "Homicide" means. Are they one and the same, "Homicide"
and "Murder"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, not in the medical examiner's point of view. When I
mean "Homicide," I mean death in the hands of another. I don't decide whether
there is intent or not. That is decided by the District Attorney's office.

MR. KELBERG: And you present your reports to the District Attorney's
office for evaluation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't. The law enforcement agency handling the
particular death investigation does. And of course, I do interact with the
District Attorney's office and the public defender's office as to the content
of our reports.

MR. KELBERG: In the course of the autopsies that involve criminal
homicides, have you looked at cases of sharp force injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Approximately how many?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've done hundreds of sharp force injury cases. And I
just looked at some statistics. Just in two and a half years, during the early
part of my career, I did about 64 stab wound cases in which 24 were multiple.
When we mean "Multiple," we mean that the person has sustained more than 10
plus stab wounds. So I've done a significant number of cases.

MR. KELBERG: Of the criminal homicide cases that have been presented to
the Coroner's office since you've been working there, what is the most
prevalent type of case that you see?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Most of the cases in homicides are from firearm
injuries. I would say 50 to 60 percent of our cases are from firearm injuries.
The sharp force injury would be about 15 to 20 percent. I'm just giving you
rough percentages.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your training, before you became board certified
in forensic pathology, did you receive training in a field involving estimation
of time of death based upon medical factors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What kind of training did you receive in that regard?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically you read the textbooks and also evaluate the
cases you have handled yourself. And in our office, we take certain perimeters
to estimate the time of death; and those include the commonly used perimeters,
which is the rigor mortis, the livor mortis and also the algor mortis, which is
a drop in temperature. There are other perimeters available, but these are the
common perimeters used in our office, and our investigator collects this data
and based on the cases you do perform autopsies on, you review the data which
is available and try and come to an estimated range based on knowledge from
your reading and experience. And my experience is that I've been taught by Dr.
Wisely and other senior pathologists in the department, and we try to come to
some estimations. It's only an estimated range as far as time of death. It's an
imprecise--you can only give an estimate.

MR. KELBERG: I think we're going to be getting into this in a bit more
detail later, but what kind of experience or training have you received on
estimation of time of death since the time you've worked at the Los Angeles
medical examiner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I told you, on all our cases, that will be one of the
common questions which is posed as to if we can determine the time of death,
especially this is always a question in unwitnessed deaths, and we go through
the exercise and we come to some estimated ranges.

MR. KELBERG: Is that an area that is part of the examination process for
board certification in forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, you have to have knowledge in that when you take
your board examination because there may be questions in that aspect.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, during your tenor at the medical examiner's
office after you were made senior physician, have you moved to other status?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. In 1987, I was promoted to be Chief of forensic
medicine, which is the no. 2 position in the department in an acting capacity.
In 1988, I became the permanent Chief of forensic medicine. And at that time,
it was the office of the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. So basically, I was
the second in command to the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. And in 1990, for a
brief time, for three months, when Dr. Kornblum, who came after Dr. Noguchi,
the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner, went for a period of time on vacation, for
three months, I was the acting Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. But--and in
1990, I went back to being Chief of medicine because Dr. Kogan, one of my
colleagues, got the acting Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. So I became no. 2
again. And then `92, February, I was reappointed as the permanent Chief Medical
Examiner-Coroner for the County of Los Angeles?

MR. KELBERG: Is that appointment through a political process by the
board of supervisors of Los Angeles County?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct. The board of supervisors appoint the
Coroner, and I think you need to have three boards to get appointed.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, once you were a Chief pathologist, second in
command as you said, what were your responsibilities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: As I mentioned earlier, I'm the head doctor of the
Coroner's office. I also carry out the Coroner functions for the County of Los
Angeles. And the main mission of the office is to determine the cause, manner
of death on all deaths which become Coroner's cases and as a--and the Coroner's
office investigates all unnatural deaths, deaths from--that is homicides. We
investigate all deaths from suicides, drug overdoses and we also investigate
all natural deaths in which there is no physician in attendance 20 days prior
to death. So we handle, as I told you, 19,000. There are about 60,000 plus
deaths in Los Angeles County. So one--nearly one-third of the deaths in Los
Angeles County come to the Coroner's office as Coroner's cases, and I'm
responsible through my staff, the doctors, the investigators and everybody in
the department to determine the cause and manner of death, conduct an inquiry
and determine the cause and manner of death.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how many forensic pathologists are employed under
you as the Chief Medical Examiner in Los Angeles County?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: At this time, I have 12--I mean, including me, have 12
full-time permanent staff pathologists. I have four temporary full-time staff
pathologists that aren't permanent physicians yet. I have one temporary
physician, three fellow. So you talk about 19 physicians.

MR. KELBERG: To handle how many cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Last year, I think we handled about 5800 or 5700
autopsies and we did about another 6,000 examinations in which 3,000 took
in-house, took place in-house and about another couple of thousand took place
outside the office because we don't bring every case to the main facility. We
send an investigator to a mortuary, and that determination is made when the
case is reported to us, which case is brought to the central facility. So you
talk about 12,000 cases. But those 3,000 are under the--the investigator goes
to the mortuary and talks to a duty doctor on the department.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, of the 12 full-time pathologists employed under
you, how many of them are board certified in forensic--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: All 12 permanent people are board certified.

MR. KELBERG: I think it will help if you wait until I finish my
question, and I'll try and do the same with your answer.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you need more forensic pathologists to in your
judgment fully handle your responsibilities of determining cause and manner of
death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I--

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because we already do more cases than what we can handle
and we always have cases which are being held every day, and having more
pathologists will, one, help us to carry out our mission in a better manner.
And the ratio recommended in the nation is one pathologist for about 200 to 250
autopsies, and my pathologists handle anywhere from 300 to 350 autopsies a
year, and that's a big case load. And the other problem is also not only--

THE COURT: Hold on, hold on, doctor. Ask your next question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you have any control over the number of criminal
homicide cases that must be autopsied by your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have any control over how many forensic pathologists
you may employ?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't have control over how many I may employ, but one
of the problems, also recruitment.

MR. KELBERG: As to how many you may employ, does it require funding from
the board of supervisors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does.

MR. KELBERG: And if you don't have the funding, you may not hire?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: Now, what do you mean by "Recruitment"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Recruitment is, there is a shortage of forensic
pathologists in the country. And we have a big training program. We train
pathologists to become forensic pathologists in the--in our office. And one of
the issues is, because of the heavy case load, the pathologists who complete
the training like to go to a jurisdiction where there's a lesser case load. And
so we lose some of the newly-trained staff in that manner, and because of the
heavy case load, some other pathologists may not like to work in such a big
office. That's one other drawback. And of course, Los Angeles is a big town,
and that issue also comes up because of housing and other issues of living
conditions here.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how would you describe the complexity of cases
presented by the criminal homicide cases that must be autopsied by the doctors
at your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are very complex cases. As I told you, our homicide
rate is about 2,000 out of the 6,000 autopsies we do, and among the 2,000 every
day, we have cases which are of significant complexity. By "Complexity," I mean
in the number of injuries the person has sustained. Like gunshot wounds, there
are multiple gunshot wounds, there are multiple stab wound cases, people who
die from multiple blunt force trauma. So percentage wise, our responsibility
for complex cases is higher than other jurisdictions.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, with respect to complex cases, do they require more
time for the forensic pathologist performing the autopsy than would be required
for cases not described as complex?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why is that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because when you have a number of injuries, our purpose
in doing the forensic autopsy is to document the findings. Because you only
have one shot at doing a thorough job, you need to document all the injuries
completely and thoroughly the first time you do the autopsy. And if you have a
lot of injuries to document, it takes time. If you have multiple gunshot
wounds, you have to find the trajectory of every gunshot wound the person
sustained and you need to retrieve the projectile, describe the injuries, et
cetera. So--and all cases are not gunshot wounds. So if the case is complex,
it's going to take more time. So one pathologist may be only able to do one
case in a whole day or may take two days to do a case. And recently, just two
weeks ago, I had several cases where people had died from multiple stab wounds
and the pathologist took a couple of days to complete the case. So naturally,
the complexity definitely reduces the workload of the physician because of the
time spent on the case.

MR. KELBERG: Do you consider as a part of complex cases cases involving
multiple victims?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Multiple victims is not considered complexity because
they are different individuals. It is--in each individual, what kind of
injuries they have is the complexity for that particular case. But in our
office, one physician may have to handle two victims of the same crime.

MR. KELBERG: Is it a policy of your office to try and have the same
Deputy Medical Examiner handle the autopsy of whatever number of victims arise
out of a single incident?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That was a policy, but right now, we try and divide the
autopsies on these victims to different pathologists.

MR. KELBERG: Why was it originally a policy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because this way, one physician has total control of all
the injury patterns observed in all the victims so he could see what other
common denominators in the injuries to try and arrive at some conclusions.

MR. KELBERG: Why have you changed from that policy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the cases are becoming more complex and I think
it's better that we divide the work among different physicians. One, you can
turn around the process in the office in a more timely manner because let's say
you have three complex homicides from one scene of crime and one pathologist is
assigned. You may have to wait couple of days before all the autopsies are
completed. But if you assign two, three physicians to the same cases, you have
one physician doing each of the cases and the detectives can come on one day,
and we have the results on the same day or within a day or two, and so a couple
of days.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you mentioned several times your mission to
determine "Cause and manner" I believe is the term you used of death; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: The cause of death I think seems pretty evident, but what's
manner of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Manner of death is whether the death was due to a
self-inflicted act like in suicide and sometimes drug overdoses, whether it was
an accident, and of course homicide is when another person has been responsible
for the injuries which resulted in the death. And then we do have the natural
deaths, which I've already discussed, and one other category we have is
undetermined when we are not able to determine whether it's a suicide or
accident or homicide.

MR. KELBERG: In your experience in handling suicide cases, have you had
experience where the suicide was committed through the use of a knife?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that part of your experience in evaluating cases of
sharp force injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: You also mentioned a term called "Blunt force trauma." And
I think we're going to get into that in a little more detail in a few minutes,
but in general, what does that refer to?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: "Blunt force" refers to injuries from blunt objects, and
one of the examples could be a hammer or crow bar or two by two, which is a
piece of wood, et cetera.

MR. KELBERG: Have you had experience in evaluating cases of blunt force
trauma?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Can you estimate approximately through your training and
your actual experience how many such cases you've evaluated?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would say in the--about a hundred plus.

MR. KELBERG: And have you also supervised cases involving blunt force
trauma?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.

MR. KELBERG: Approximately how many?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Hundreds because I've been involved in training program
for the last 10 plus years.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, when you joined the medical examiner's office,
was the office structured such that the investigators worked under the
direction of the Chief Medical Examiner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Has that changed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: When did that change?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That changed in 1990. The board of supervisors changed
the ordinance wherein you had non-physician director to conduct the operations
of the department, but the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner was retained to carry
out the Coroner functions or the medical functions.

MR. KELBERG: What responsibility or control do you as the Chief Medical
Examiner have over any of your investigators who may be working for the other
side of the office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't have direct control, but I set the standards for
their practice in the department, and they usually carry out my requests.

MR. KELBERG: And if they don't?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They usually do. I have not seen them refuse my
request.

MR. KELBERG: We'll leave it at that. Doctor, you indicated earlier that
you're board certified in I think six areas of specialties; is that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: We've heard so far of the anatomical, clinical, forensic
pathology and with the Royal board in Canada. What are your other board
certifications?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've certified in internal medicine, I've certified in
infectious diseases and I've certified in geriatric medicine. The internal
medicine, infectious diseases is by the American Board of Internal Medicine,
the Geriatric Medicine boards is by the American Board of Internal Medicine and
American Board of Family Practice. And those are the other three certifications
which I alluded to earlier.

MR. KELBERG: When did you receive each of those board certifications?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Internal medicine was `83, infectious disease was `84
and the geriatric medicine boards was in `92.

MR. KELBERG: Did each of those board certifications require you to pass
some type of examination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Did each one involve a written examination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Did any of them involve an oral examination?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Were you successful in passing each of the examinations the
first time you took them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I passed the infectious disease examination the first
time, but not the internal medicine and infectious disease--I mean internal
medicine and geriatrics.

MR. KELBERG: Did you pass them the second time you took them?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not the second time. I passed geriatrics the third time
and internal medicine the third time.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say your primary area of
specialty is forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why have you pursued board certification in these other
areas?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because I'm also a clinician and I like doing clinical
medicine.

MR. KELBERG: Does clinical medicine help you in any way in being a
better forensic pathologist?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In what way?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It helps you to understand the--the clinical aspects of
medicine because half our work is to both--do both--evaluate hospital cases
because many deaths which are reported to our office also go to a hospital
before they become Coroner's cases because lifesaving efforts are made and it's
good to know about medical treatment. And I'm also responsible for evaluating
communicable diseases.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, among the 12 board certified forensic pathologists
working for you, is there a doctor by the name of Irwin Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How long have you known Dr. Golden?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've known Dr. Golden since 1983 when I returned back to
the Coroner's office, but he's been on the staff since 1981.

MR. KELBERG: You've indicated that you left the Coroner's office for
some period of time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: When was that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I left the Coroner's office in 1980 for two years when I
furthered my training in internal medicine and infectious diseases.

MR. KELBERG: And then you returned to the medical examiner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Is Dr. Golden a doctor who has worked continuously at the
medical examiner's office since 1983 when you returned?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And from your knowledge of him, you learned that he has
worked there in fact since 1981?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In your position as Chief Medical Examiner, are you
familiar with approximately how many autopsies he has performed in the course
of the time he has been with your office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think over 5,000 plus.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you consider Dr. Golden to be a personal friend
of yours?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. He's also a colleague.

MR. KELBERG: As you sit here today, how do you feel about testifying in
this case?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm here to present truthfully and accurately the
Coroner's findings on the two victims who died, Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ron Goldman, so that the jury can understand the Coroner's process and know the
truth about all the findings and any errors which were committed by the office,
acknowledge them and basically explain the cause and manner of death.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, have you found in your review of all the materials
you have reviewed that Dr. Golden made mistakes in the course of conducting
autopsies on Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Golden--Goldman? Excuse me.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He has made some mistakes, yes.

MR. KELBERG: And we're going to get into this in much greater detail
later. Have you been asked to evaluate as to any such mistake the significance
of the mistake on a variety of issues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have been asked to review the significance.

MR. KELBERG: Have you done that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from your findings of whatever mistakes were made,
is it difficult for you to be here today to testify?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you--going back just to your curriculum vitae,
do you have any teaching appointments at the present time?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: What are they?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm a Clinical Professor at USC School of Medicine both
in medicine and pathology. I'm also an assistant professor--not
assistant--associate professor at UCLA school of medicine in pathology.

MR. KELBERG: What do those responsibilities entail?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The residence from both these institutions rotate in the
Department of Coroner, and I'm involved in the training in forensic pathology.
They do monthly rotations. I also give lectures when requested by these
institutions to their staff. I'm also involved in the medical student rotations
at USC school of medicine.

MR. KELBERG: How long have you been with those affiliations?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: With UCLA, I've been associate professor since 1992.
With USC, I've been since 1979. But as I told you, I started as assistant
professor at USC, moved up to associate professor and now I'm a full
professor.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In the clinical series, clinical series.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you've indicated that you have testified before in
court as a result of cases that you have handled as a forensic pathologist; is
that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Approximately how many times have you testified in court as
an expert in forensic pathology?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Hundreds of times in this county, testified a few--fewer
times in San Bernardino, Kern and San Diego counties, testified in Los Angeles
Federal Court and also federal courts in Virginia and Las Vegas.

MR. KELBERG: Have you ever testified as a witness called by a Defendant
in a criminal case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Not that I recall on a criminal matter, but I have been
called by the public defender's office to testify as to the findings. But
mainly I testified for the Prosecution on criminal matters.

MR. KELBERG: I think the public defender's office would feel slighted if
you didn't recognize them as lawyers who represent people charged with
crimes.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm going to object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what's your understanding of who the public
defender's office represents?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They represent the defendants. And when they request me
to come on a case to explain certain findings, I have done that. But mainly on
criminal prosecutions, I have testified for the Prosecution. In civil cases,
I've testified for both.

MR. KELBERG: When you say "Both," what do you mean?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Plaintiff and Defense.

MR. KELBERG: Plaintiffs in what kind of cases, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: These are malpractice cases which come to court.
Sometimes they're a civil litigation on the mechanics of a vehicle which caused
a traffic accident. So in these kind of situations, both the Defense and the
Prosecution approach me.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from your experience, is it common that Deputy
Medical Examiners or Chief Medical Examiners are commonly called by the
Prosecution in criminal cases?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you estimate for us approximately how many
hours you have put in in preparing to testify here today, evaluations and so
forth?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would say at least about hundred plus hours with
the--you and Mr. Ken lynch and I spent hundreds of other hours with
coordination--coordinating police reports working with Defense attorneys on
different issues when they call us. So I would say couple of hundred hours in
the last one year.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in that couple of hundred hours, have you received
any additional compensation from whatever your salary may be for the additional
time you've worked on this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Are you still expected to do your work as the
responsibilities of the Chief Medical Examiner are defined?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Have you done that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: When do you find the time to work on this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I start early whenever I'm required to meet with the
Prosecution team and I work late in the evening sometimes and work at my off
hours at home.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you've indicated a number of hours that you believe
you've worked with Mr. Lynch and myself in preparation for testifying here
today. What is the content of that preparation if it's something other than
shooting the breeze and having coffee?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would say a hundred hours, maybe more.

MR. KELBERG: What have we been doing for a hundred hours?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: There have been several processes involved in the
different meetings. One was to evaluate the photographs and understand the
injuries depicted in the photographs. That is one aspect of our meeting. The
other aspects were preparing the justification of the photographs for
introduction into evidence so that the Coroner's findings may be prepared--may
be presented in a proper manner. We were also involved in reviewing literature
on time of death issues, and I assisted in the process of preparing the charts
to--to discuss the time of death issue.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you estimate about how much literature you've
reviewed in the course of preparing for your testimony?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Couple of textbooks and several articles.

MR. KELBERG: And approximately how much time you have devoted to just
reading the literature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Several hours on each of the books and some of the
articles.

MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Several hours on each of the books or several
hours combined?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Several hours on each of the books and articles.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, have you been given any instructions or
requests by either myself or Mr. Lynch with respect to what is expected from
you as you testify here as a witness today?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically to tell the truth and to bring out all the
Coroner's findings and present them to this jury and the public as I see it.

MR. KELBERG: Have we suggested in any way how your findings should be or
what your findings should be?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: And would you in fact allow us to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. First of all, I'm the doctor and you're the lawyer
and I'm supposed to present the medical findings. There's no way you can coach
me on medical findings.

MR. KELBERG: Have we tried to coach you in any way?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, besides your teaching responsibilities, are you a
member of certain recognized organizations in the fields of medicine?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I am.

MR. KELBERG: What are they?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I am the--I'm a fellow of the American College of
Physicians. I'm a fellow at the College of American Pathologists. I'm a fellow
in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in the division of
medicine. I am a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America. I'm a
fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. I'm a member in the
National Association of Medical Examiners. I'm a member of the Los Angeles
Society of Pathologists.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are these organizations, number one, that you've
joined just by paying dues?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You have to pay dues, but to be eligible for membership,
you must have achieved certain competence in the field because--for example,
the American College of Physicians, to become a fellow, you must ordinarily be
board certified in internal medicine or subspecialties and have published some
articles. And College of American Pathologists, you have to be board certified
in pathology before you become a fellow of the American College of--American
Pathologists. For the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, you
have to be certified by the Royal College before you get Fellowship. For the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, in addition to being a forensic
scientist, you have to have actively taken part in some of the Academy
meetings, presented papers, which I have done, and then you get elected to be a
fellow after having been a member for several years. For the Infectious Disease
Society, you have to be board certified in infectious diseases to be a member
of the Infectious Disease Society of America. To be a Los Angeles Society
pathologist member, you have to be an active pathologist in the Los Angeles
County. As far as the National Association of Medical Examiners, you must be a
certified forensic pathologist to be a member of the National Association of
Medical Examiners, but they do take board eligible forensic pathologists
also.

MR. KELBERG: Does the term "Fellow" that you've used with respect to
several of the organizations have any particular meaning?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. That is a special recognition to years of
experience and qualifications in addition to other requirements.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you mentioned I think briefly something about
literature as far as articles. Are these articles in which you either alone or
with others wrote the content of the articles?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Tell us a bit about your literature.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've written articles on deaths from disopyramide,
flecainide. I've coauthored articles on crossbow injuries. I worked on an
article with--a case support on tuberculosis aortitis. Also written articles on
identification of doe's by using pacemakers, dentures. Those are some of the
publications there in the bibliography there.

MR. KELBERG: Approximately how many publications do you have to your--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think about 11.

MR. KELBERG: And are you also involved in something that's called an
"Abstract" separate and apart from the actual articles?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What is an "Abstract"?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Abstract is, you present a paper in a national meeting
and you present a particular topic to an audience and that gets published in
that meeting handout, and it also includes presentation of posters which
would--picking a particular topic and demonstrating it in the form of a poster.
And I've done about--

MR. KELBERG: Could you explain that a little bit? What do you mean by
demonstrating on a poster?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If you--if--let's say you're doing sex determination by
pubic remains. You take different photographs of--from different victims, the
pubic synthases region and demonstrate what are the features that help you
identify a person from those features. And that will be one kind of poster
presentation. The other poster presentation could be on any other topic the way
you want to present it. It could be photographic or literature searches,
documenting and supporting the evidence you want to present.

MR. KELBERG: Approximately how many abstracts have you been involved
with?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think at least nearly two dozen, and I have the exact
number here.

MR. KELBERG: Do you have a copy of the curriculum vitae that we've
previously marked as exhibit 295?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And--

MR. KELBERG: And that will allow you to refresh your memory as to the
exact number?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Please do so.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Publications, 11 as I mentioned and abstracts and poster
presentations, 20.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there anything else that you would like to bring
to our attention dealing with your education, your experience, your training
which allows you to practice in the area of forensic pathology?

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I would like to move to a completely different
topic. On June 13th, 1994, did you learn that there were two criminal homicide
cases presented at your office involving Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Have you prepared at your direction photographs which will
show us the process that is followed with respect to those two bodies or any
other bodies that are suspected criminal homicides from the time they arrive at
your office through the time of autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Before we start with the photographs, would you please
define for us, what is an autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: An autopsy is examination of a human body with the sole
purpose of determining the cause and manner of death and also diagnosing the
disease processes the person may or may not have had. This is an internal--this
includes an external examination of the body. And in the forensic autopsy, you
look for identifying characteristics like scars, tattoos. You also document any
injuries as you do that process. And the documentation of the injuries and
these identifying characteristics take place on diagrams described by the
Coroner's office. Photographs are taken. And following this process, the
internal examination is done. And the internal examination is an organ-by-organ
dissection by the pathologist looking at the various areas of the body. And if
the death is from firearm injuries or sharp force injuries, you document the
trajectory of the injuries, recover projectiles if they are death from
firearms. And during the process also, you save body tissues and fluids for any
toxicological analysis you may need to do. You save tissues for any microscopic
analysis you need to do. And following the autopsy process, you document all
the findings and later, you dictate them, which comes a transcribed autopsy
process. Now, the autopsy process also will include collection of any evidence
before the autopsy, which will be an external examination stage, at which time
the photographs are also taken and sometimes x-rays are taken before the
autopsy to document location of projectiles if the death is from firearms. And
that gives you a rough summary of the process. Basically you have an external
examination, an internal examination, evidence collection before autopsy,
tissue, fluid collection during autopsy for various purposes. Conclusion of the
process, you determine the findings, assimilate the findings and make a
diagnosis as to the cause of death, and then the doctor issues the findings as
to the cause of death and a death certificate is issued, which is a final work
product of the Coroner's office determining the cause of death.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, all the documents that you've talked about, the
diagrams and so forth, are these documents which are expected to be completed
by the Deputy Medical Examiner at or shortly after the time of the actual
observation of whatever is being diagrammed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And is the "Autopsy protocol" the term that is used for
this transcribed document which reflects in words the observations made by the
medical examiner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that autopsy protocol something which is expected to
completed shortly after the autopsy has been performed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in your office, is there a time frame with which the
medical examiner is expected to comply in order to have the transcription
prepared?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The medical examiner has about 24 hours to dictate the
findings and--but generally, most of the doctors dictate the findings the same
day soon after the autopsy. The documented injuries are done on the diagrams.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in the course of your review of the information in
this case, did you learn as to whether or not an investigator from the
Coroner's office was dispatched to 875 South Bundy in Los Angeles County on
June 13th, 1994?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Who or whom, if it's more than one, was dispatched?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The investigator who was dispatched to 875 south Bundy
was Miss Claudine Ratcliffe. Separately also, one of our forensic attendants
responded to the scene, and that was Mr. Jacobo.

MR. KELBERG: What are the qualifications of an investigator such as
Claudine Ratcliffe? Maybe we should start with, what is she expected to do when
she goes to 875 south Bundy as a Coroner investigator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They have several responsibilities. One of the
responsibilities is to talk to the--in this particular case, it was a criminal
death investigation which was being conducted as two decedents had expired--I
mean two decedents were involved. And Miss Ratcliffe had to discuss the
circumstances with the law enforcement officials who were there. This is one of
the functions, to collect the circumstances and make that available to the
medical examiner. The other responsibility is to establish identification of
the decedents, collect data which will help in that process.

MR. KELBERG: How is that done? What kind of data?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, one is, if there's family members available, be
sure identification, sometimes from California driver's license and sometimes
from passports. This is one method of--which is used at the scene, or somebody
may know the person. The--shall I continue?

MR. KELBERG: Please.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The other responsibility for the investigator is to
collect perimeters for the medical examiner with reference to time of death,
which is the livor mortis, the algor mortis and the rigor mortis, estimate of
those perimeters.

MR. KELBERG: I think you mentioned rigor twice and livor once. Did you
mean to say a different--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. I said livor, algor and rigor.

MR. KELBERG: All right. So three different components?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: What are the training procedures or what is the training
provided for somebody like Miss Ratcliffe to perform that task?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. KELBERG: Does Miss Ratcliffe have any specialized training provided
by your office to accomplish that function that you've just identified?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: She is trained by the--during the initial part of her
career as how to estimate rigor mortis and also the--taking the liver
temperature to estimate the temperature decrease after death.

MR. KELBERG: We'll get into that in greater detail. What other
responsibilities does Miss Ratcliffe have when she goes out to the scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The next respon--I mentioned three already. The fourth
responsibility, to take at-scene photographs so that the medical examiner has
an idea what really occurred at the scene because our doctors don't go to the
scene on every case and the investigators are the eyes and ears of the medical
examiner. And they obtain information for us, as I mentioned earlier. They also
take at-scene photographs, which gives us a better feeling of what happened at
the scene or the condition of the body in which they saw the decedent. The
other aspect of their responsibility is to--

MR. KELBERG: With respect to the photographs, assuming that there's a
police agency involved in the investigation and there is a police agency with a
photographer at the scene of the body or bodies that the investigator is going
to observe and handle, what kind of photographs do you expect from the
investigator, vis-à-vis what you would leave to the police agency to
obtain?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The police agencies take a more detailed--they obtain
many photographs of the scene which gives you more detail. But our investigator
just takes some Polaroid photographs to give us an idea about the location of
the body and its relationship to the surroundings to the extent possible. We
only take Polaroid photographs.

MR. KELBERG: Would you like to tape a sip?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what is the responsibility that the
investigator like Miss Ratcliffe has, vis-à-vis the responsibility of
the police agency investigators dealing with the victim's body?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The--the examination of the body is the purview of the
Coroner's investigator. The law enforcement investigators do not deal with the
examination of the body. The examination of the body is under the Coroner's
domain.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you said that doctors do not go on every
case--medical examiners do not go on every case to the scene where the bodies
are located. Is that an accurate statement of what you said?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: How frequently do you go?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Only if there's a special need to go. Like the last time
I went to a scene was one of my--one of my doctors expired. So I went to the
scene. But generally we don't have the staffing to allow that. We do send all
our doctors in training to go to the scene.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, would it be a better practice to
have one of your doctors at the scene than to rely, as you say, on the
investigator to be the eyes and ears of the medical examiner?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would be good practice to have that also happen.

MR. KELBERG: In your opinion, doctor, is the fact that you or a Deputy
Medical Examiner from Los Angeles County medical examiner's office did not go
to 875 Bundy on June 13th, but rather Miss Ratcliffe was sent, does that affect
in any way your ability to determine the issues that you have reviewed in this
case?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, from your review of the information that you have
been provided, is there anything which you believe you would have been able to
obtain that would have given you significant information not provided in the
materials you have?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It would have been nice for one of our doctors to go to
the scene, but I don't think we lack any other information we need to provide
the opinion we need to provide.

MR. KELBERG: Why is that, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because the different objectives you try to meet when
you go to the scene is being met by our Coroner's investigator who is pretty
well trained to obtain that information. And in our office, this has been the
practice for several years, ever since I joined, and I find that though going
to the scene does help, if a trained investigator collects information you
need, it provides enough basis for our opinions.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, as part of your review of the information in this
case, have you personally visited 875 Bundy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. I visited the sight twice.

MR. KELBERG: And were you able when you visited the sight to look in the
areas where from photographs, you learned that the bodies of Mr. Goldman and
Miss Brown Simpson were found?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Were you also able to examine the environment surrounding
that area, including trees, plants, walls, steps, things of that nature?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, were there any other--I think you were going on to
another responsibility of Miss Ratcliffe before I interrupted you with some
clarifying questions. Were there any other responsibilities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes, yes. I mentioned identification. I mentioned
collecting circumstances. I mentioned collecting perimeters of time of death. I
represented at-scene photographs. The other two aspects of the Coroner's
investigator is preservation of the property of the decedent, and most
importantly, notifying the next of kin because the next of kin may not
necessarily be there at the residence and they have--our responsibility in our
office also is to notify the next of kin that their loved one has unfortunately
died and let them know what the circumstances are. So these are roughly the
major responsibilities of the investigator, which I wanted to bring up here.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is there also latitude provided to the investigator
with respect to calling a criminalist who is employed by the medical examiner's
office to the scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: I think we're going to get into that subject a little
later. But would that be an additional possible responsibility of the
investigator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Anything else?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically, I think I've given you the highlights of the
Coroner's investigators responsibilities.

MR. KELBERG: Now, you said another person was dispatched as well as Miss
Ratcliffe to the 875 Bundy location. Who was that by title or position or
something, and we'll get a name in a moment if you know it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Mr. Jacobo.

MR. KELBERG: I guess we'll get a name now. What's the position?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: He's a--he was a forensic mortuary attendant at that
time.

MR. KELBERG: That is a fancy title for doing what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They help in transporting the remains from a scene to
the main office. They're also responsible for initial processing of the remains
in our office, which includes fingerprinting, measuring the height, weight, et
cetera.

MR. KELBERG: Is there a form that the investigator uses that is part of
the regular procedure with criminal homicide cases to record the measurements,
height and weight, obtained by a person such as Mr. Jacobo when the bodies are
returned to the medical examiner's office?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Are there any other responsibilities that Mr. Jacobo would
be expected to have in June of 1994?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Basically the responsibilities I already mentioned.

MR. KELBERG: Is Mr. Jacobo under the direction of Miss Ratcliffe at the
scene?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Do they go in the same car or van or do they go separately
if there is a usual practice?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They go in separate vehicles.

MR. KELBERG: And is that the usual practice?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is that what in fact happened here?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I have just a moment to talk to Mr.
Fairtlough?

(Brief pause.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, I believe at this
time, we do have some photographs taken at the direction of Dr. Lakshmanan
which are on the laser disk as Mr. Fairtlough confirms for me. I understand we
can print out the photograph after it's been shown. And so I would recommend
that we use the printout as the exhibit and just do them sequentially starting
with 296 on.

THE COURT: All right. People's 296, next photo in order.

(Deft's 296 for id = photograph)

MR. KELBERG: Photo 06, please.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what are we looking at in this particular photo,
which will be exhibit 296?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You're looking at a Coroner's van, side view.

MR. KELBERG: Without--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This would be the vehicle that Mr. Jacobo would have
taken to the scene to bring back the remains--the decedents back to the
office.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I don't think we want to have to send you to a
chiropractor. I don't know if there's a more readily seen screen.

THE COURT: Yes. Doctor, to your right, doctor, there should be a--to
your right.

MR. KELBERG: The other right, doctor.

THE COURT: There you go. Right there.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Oh.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You're welcome.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this the actual vehicle or just a representative
sample?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is actually--not actually. One of the vehicles of
the Coroner's office.

MR. KELBERG: As far as shape and design, is this basically the type of
vehicle that Mr. Jacobo took?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Where is this van parked in this photograph, 296?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: This is marked in the garage area of the Coroner's
office.

MR. KELBERG: I think you might have to swing the microphone.

(The witness complies.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's parked in the garage area of the Coroner's
office.

MR. KELBERG: And what is the process that is expected to take place at
that location when the bodies are brought back?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The remains are removed from the van and the--they're
taken to a room adjoining the garage there wherein their height and weight is
taken.

MR. KELBERG: Is there anything else that this photograph depicts that is
of consequence to your practice and procedure?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Nothing else I see here.

MR. KELBERG: Could I have photo 08, please, Mr. Fairtlough. And could
this be 297, your Honor?

THE COURT: 297.

(Peo's 297 for id = photograph)

MR. KELBERG: What are we looking at in this photo, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: If I point here, is that pointing there, your Honor?

THE COURT: He needs to point.

MR. KELBERG: I think we've learned from experience that Mr. Fairtlough
may be a better pointer. If you could direct Mr. Fairtlough to the portion of
the photograph you wish him to highlight, please do so, doctor.

THE COURT: There should be an arrow.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The arrow is correctly pointing to a gurney, and as the
arrow moves to the side, you have the drying racks, the--three of them. This
photograph is of the same garage area where you saw the van parked. And what
you're seeing is the gurnies and the drying racks which have been washed and
are drying in the--actually the clothing--the clothing are hung in these drying
racks, and they've been washed and they're allowed to be dried in the garage
area.

MR. KELBERG: Is this where they are routinely cleaned, that is these
drying racks?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And will they be then taken to another area from this
garage for use?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. They are taken to the photographic area when
they're completely dry. And one point I want to make here, if the arrow can
go--move downwards a little bit, you can see the--there's a pan there, and
that's the drip pan. And there are shelves available in the drying rack. So the
location of the pan can be adjusted to the length of the clothing. And the
other point I want to make is, the drying pan is also turned here so that any
material, any remaining water will be completely dried before the rack is taken
back inside, at which point the pan will be turned upside down so that it will
be really serve the pan purpose.

MR. KELBERG: Or perhaps right side up?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Is it accurate to say that this is upside down from how the
pan appears when it's being used?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Why do you have a pan?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: So that any material which is dripping from the clothing
can also be collected if necessary.

MR. KELBERG: And why do you need to adjust the level of the pan?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because you have different lengths of clothing.
Sometimes you have a jacket which is longer; and depending on the length of the
clothing, you can adjust the level of the pan.

MR. KELBERG: In a criminal homicide case at your office, doctor, how
many different cases are at the same time placed in one of these drying
racks?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Usually only one--clothing from one particular case is
placed in the drying rack.

MR. KELBERG: Why do you do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: So that we can separate each person's clothing
and--number one, and also for purposes of evidentiary preservation.

MR. KELBERG: You said "Usually." Does that indicate that sometimes that
is not the case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In rare--I mean not rare. Sometimes when we have an
increased number of homicide cases and we only have certain number of racks
available, then the pan and--the pan--the same drying rack could be used for
two decedents with the--you see, when you turn the pan upside down, there's
also a hanger space available.

MR. KELBERG: Underneath the pan?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Actually in the photograph, you see it above the pan.
But when you turn the pan, it will serve as a drying hanger rack.

MR. KELBERG: Where the arrow--Mr. Fairtlough has the arrow now, is
that--

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, yes, yes. And so if you have two cases, sometimes
we do use the same drying rack for two cases. But that's not a normal
procedure.

MR. KELBERG: From your review of the materials in this case, was the
clothing of each of the decedents, Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldberg,
placed in a separate drying ran?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, what are these gurnies that are also in this
photograph used for?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: They are the gurnies on which the remains are placed
for--in the office for purposes of examination, autopsy and storage till they
are released.

MR. KELBERG: And is a gurney like this used to remove the body of, for
example, Mr. Goldman from the van that we've seen in the earlier photo?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And take it somewhere?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. As I said, it goes to the next adjoining room.

MR. KELBERG: If we could have, Mr. Fairtlough, 09, please.

THE COURT: All right. This will be People's exhibit 298.

MR. KELBERG: 298. Thank you, your Honor.

(Peo's 298 for id = photograph)

MR. KELBERG: What are we looking at in this photo, 298?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You're seeing the weighing scale and height measuring
device there which is leaning against the wall. The weighing scale is pretty
self-evident.

MR. KELBERG: Do you want to get the arrow moved somewhere, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The--could you move the arrow down, please, and--to
the weighing scale? You can see the--a dial there, and then the entire floor
area is the weighing scale where the gurney is moved on and the weight is
taken. And of course, the weight of the gurney is adjusted so that we get the
proper body weight.

MR. KELBERG: And in this photograph, doctor, do you also see this
measuring device?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. On the left side of--on the right side of the
weighing scale. Just move the arrow a little more to the right side. That--you
can see that. That's the measuring device.

MR. KELBERG: If you'll keep your voice up, please, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is a measuring device.

MR. KELBERG: I think we have a better picture coming up of that. How is
the measurement of the body length taken?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Using that device usually from the--it's placed next to
the body, and the height is taken from the feet to the top of the head.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: If we could have photo 12, please, Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. KELBERG: And I think the arrow is in a pretty appropriate location.
There's something in front of the scale, doctor. What is that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is the measuring device I mentioned earlier to take
the height.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is there--is there a specific numbered form on
which this information is to be placed as a part of the official record of the
Coroner's office for Nicole Brown Simpson and a separate one for Ronald
Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. They place it on the form 1 of the investigator's
report. It's also recorded in the fingerprint cards.

MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough? Your Honor, we have a document that's going
to go up. May this be marked as I believe exhibit--it might be appropriate as
298-A.

THE COURT: 298-A?

MR. KELBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Have you shown that to Mr. Shapiro?

MR. KELBERG: They've seen them all. It's a form 1.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 298-A for id = photograph)

THE COURT: Proceed. Thank you

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in general terms, if you can see, what is this
document, 298-A?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is the form 1 of the Coroner's investigator's
report.

MR. KELBERG: And perhaps, Mr. Fairtlough, if you could zoom in on the
top portion of the document. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the handwritten entries that appear on the first
line, Brown, Simpson, Nicole, so forth, is that information that is written in
by the investigator?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And in this case, that would be Miss Ratcliffe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And if we look--and perhaps--I don't know if we have an
arrow available with this device. Doctor, is there a place on the form that's
visible now to reflect the height and weight obtained from Miss Brown
Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. The arrow's just below the weight. And if you move
the arrow a little more to the--just left of--left--left of it--the other side.
Other side. I'm sorry. Your right is my left. Okay. That is 65 inches. That is
the height. So that's the height. And the next number you see, which you just
saw, is the weight, 129 pounds.

MR. KELBERG: 65 inches is five feet, five inches, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And she weighed 129 pounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the other information in general terms--

MR. KELBERG: If we could back up just a bit, Mr. Fairtlough, to show the
document in fuller form.

MR. KELBERG: The other type of information generally that is to be
placed on this document by the investigator is what?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: You get the information of the next of kin. As you--as
you move down further, it gives you the place of death, who pronounced the
person and then you have the information on the investigating agency. And you
also have the relationship of the decedent to the surroundings. Then you have
information of the liver temperature, environmental temperature, and on the
right side, you're seeing the description of--the opinion of the livor mortis
and rigor mortis.

MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Fairtlough could leave the arrow where we are right
now.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this one of the pieces of information that you
expect the investigator to observe and record to assist you in evaluating a
range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough can move the arrow down another--

MR. KELBERG: Is that another aspect of the information you expect the
investigator to get for this purpose?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough can turn the arrow around or move it
all the way to the left of the document as we are looking at it. The other
left. Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Is this the other aspect dealing with temperature
measurement that you expect the investigator to obtain--that arrow is moving
too quickly for me--investigator to obtain to evaluate and estimate--to
evaluate and estimate range for time of death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. The environmental temperature is 70 degrees there
and then the liver temperature is 82. And the other term used for environmental
temperature is "Ambient temperature."

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, there appears to be next to those temperature
readings a column for time and column for date. Is all of this information
provided by Miss Ratcliffe?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And what is the time column expected to reflect?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It is--it reflects the time that environmental
temperature was taken.

MR. KELBERG: And down below under--what appears to be 1045; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. And then you have--below that is 1050 when the
liver temperature was taken on Miss Brown Simpson.

MR. KELBERG: And both of these were done at the scene on June 13th,
1994?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Now, Mr. Fairtlough, if we could have page 49, please. May
we have just a moment with Mr. Fairtlough?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District
Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, these documents appear to contain
addresses and phone numbers regarding next of kin and so forth, and Miss Clark
has quite appropriately informed me of this, and I'm not certain that's
information that should be a matter of public record. We are attempting to--

THE COURT: All right. Do you have anything else you can do to move on
because we have about three or four minutes left in our--

MR. KELBERG: This was going to be basically--my understanding was, the
Court was going to conclude at 12. I think if Mr. Fairtlough can
just--actually, he's got tape and measure ready. So I think we're going to be
able to do it. My only concern, your Honor, is in the printed exhibit 298-A, I
would ask--

THE COURT: We can go back and reconstruct that. I'm sure there will be
no objection.

MR. COCHRAN: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. KELBERG: Thank you.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, looking at the form that's up here now--

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may this be marked as 298-B as in boy?

THE COURT: 298-B.

(Peo's 298-B for id = form)

MR. KELBERG: Is this basically the same form--

MR. KELBERG: We need another quick modification. Your Honor, I think I
have a simpler way to do it. We'll get the exhibit taken care of at a later
time. Your Honor, may I have just this one-page document marked as 298-B?

THE COURT: 298-B.

(Peo's 298-B for id = one-page document)

MR. KELBERG: May I approach again?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, showing you 298-B, are you familiar with this
document?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: In essence, is this the same form that we were just looking
at, 298-A, except this time, it is to reflect the findings of Miss Ratcliffe
concerning Mr. Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Does the document reflect height and weights for Mr.
Goldman?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, it does.

MR. KELBERG: What are they?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The height of Mr. Goldman is 69 inches and the weight is
171 pounds.

MR. KELBERG: 69 inches is five feet, nine inches?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's correct.

MR. KELBERG: And does this document also reflect the perimeters that you
were talking about in the other document regarding time of death aspects?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And with respect to the air or ambient and liver
temperatures that we saw in the exhibit 298-A as 70 and 82 for liver, are those
the readings that Miss Ratcliffe recorded for Mr. Goldberg?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. But she recorded them at a different time.

MR. KELBERG: What are the times of the air temperature--I believe we saw
before was 10:40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: 10:45 for Miss Nicole. Mr. Goldman was done at 10:35,
the ambient temperature, and the liver temperature was done at 10:40. Do you
want it explained further or--

MR. KELBERG: Just so we have the sequence correct, that according to
Miss Ratcliffe's record, Mr. Goldberg's air temperature was taken first?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: At 10:35?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's what is recorded here.

MR. KELBERG: And then his liver temperature was taken at 10:40?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And according to 298-A, Miss Brown Simpson's air
temperature, the surrounding air temperature of 70 was taken at 10:45?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And the liver temperature was taken at 10:50; is that
correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I think that concludes.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to conclude the
presentation of the testimony for the morning. Please remember all of my
admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, do not form
any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with
regard to the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been
submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess
until Monday morning at 9:00 A.M. I'll see counsel back here, Mr. Shapiro, Mr.
Kelberg at 1:45 for our discussions. And let me see counsel at the sidebar with
the Court reporter, please. Dr. Lakshmanan, see you Monday, 9:00 o'clock.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at sidebar.

MR. SHAPIRO: In light of the fact that the performance of Dr. Golden is
going to be addressed by this witness, we would like to have available
immediately all of his review records done by Dr. Lakshmanan. It's our
understanding that the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner is required under their
manual to periodically review and evaluate the performance of the doctors, so
we would like to get that for purposes of cross-examination, as well as
evaluate their ability to estimate the time of death and their ability to
perform their duties and to testify. There's a form that is sent out. I
understand that form is also sent out to Prosecutors to have a review sent back
to the Coroner. At least there's a form for that in their manual. I would also
like that information if it's available. And I don't know that they keep such
records for others.

THE COURT: Why don't you keep your voice down.

MR. SHAPIRO: For Ratcliffe and for--

THE COURT: Jacobo.

MR. SHAPIRO: Jacobo.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, it seems to me these are personnel records, and
I believe the appropriate way to handle it would be to inquire of the Coroner's
office. And if there is a legal basis to object to that, I think it should be
done in that manner.

THE COURT: Why don't you do this. Why don't you advise Dr. Lakshmanan
that he should expect an SDT for these records and get it started.

MR. SHAPIRO: It may be even quicker if you could ask him to bring them
to Court and review them in camera, see if--

MR. KELBERG: I don't think that's appropriate. I think he should have
the County counsel present with him.

THE COURT: Actually get the subpoena together so we can save time.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll deliver it to him right now.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. COCHRAN: You asked us to respond to the other thing about page 4,
this jury instruction, Marcia and I. I would like to take two subjects up
first. We can do it on the record or however you want to or up here.

MR. COCHRAN: Number two, you had asked us to respond by June 2nd,
let you know what our thought is on this, and I would just like to address that
briefly if I could.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: As to your order entitled "Sanctions" dated May 28, 1995,
you proposed a jury instruction admonishing this jury, and we would ask the
Court to read that instruction. And we would ask one other thing. I talked to
Mr. Scheck. He feels also that the Prosecution should be precluded from arguing
regarding this point. In addition, he may want to argue it a little further.
And secondly, you got a copy and I think the People did also of the proposed
jury instruction we wanted regarding air-tight alibi. We would ask the Court to
consider giving that, and I have the language here.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So those are things I would like to be able to address--

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: --in more detail when you feel it's appropriate.

MS. CLARK: I wanted to be heard, and I can't do it now obviously because
I've got to go. We wanted to be heard also regarding the Court's proposed
admonition to the jury, especially in light of the rough treatment Mr. Goldberg
was given over a very innocuous thing. I think the jury has heard the Court
admonish and basically slash and burn the Prosecution on many occasions.

THE COURT: Whose problem is that though?

MS. CLARK: No. Over very innocuous things where Defense has been
given--the jury's been told about the Defense misconduct once even though
misconduct has been repeatedly occurring. We already have imbalances in the way
the Prosecution's been treated in the eyes of the jury. Outside the presence
doesn't matter because they don't know about it. But in their presence, we've
been admonished, sanctioned, yelled at and basically reprimanded at every bend
and turn for innocuous things.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, your argument is about to lose a lot of
credibility.

MS. CLARK: Well, I would like to be heard then with respect to all of
these things at the appropriate time when we have a chance to do so. I think
that the Court has really perhaps not been able to remember all of the times we
have been sanctioned by the Court in the presence of the jury and hank's
treatment very notable in that regard with respect to the--

THE COURT: The problem is, Mr. Goldberg related an agreement between
proposing counsel and the Court.

MS. CLARK: Because the substance of the issue concerning that agreement
was so non--was so non-prejudicial, it was so non-probative of anything even at
the time it happened. And we went to sidebar. Counsel was--counsel who's
present now was saying, oh, well, it's really no big deal because it really was
no big deal. So I mean we just think you are talking about form over substance.
So if we are going to argue this, let's do that. With respect to the air-tight
alibi issue, I mean, we need to be heard about that because the instruction
proffered by Mr. Dershowitz is out of the ball park, and the proffer in the
request by Mr. Scheck precludes us from arguing something to the jury for which
they heard evidence, absolutely unconscionable.

THE COURT: When do you think you can have a written response filed on
those two issues? I want to see a written response by Defense counsel first,
and then we will--

MR. COCHRAN: You have our proposed instruction.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Judge. I can't hear.

THE COURT: You guys are talking at the same time. Go ahead. I'll tell
you what. Why don't you both file your P&A's Friday.